Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom

Last updated

Wilson v United Kingdom
Daily Mail clock, closeup.png
CourtEuropean Court of Human Rights
Full case nameWilson and National Union of Journalists, Palmer and NURMTW, Doolan and others v United Kingdom
Citation(s)[2002] ECHR 552, [2002] IRLR 568, (2002) 35 EHRR 20 (applications nos. 30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96)
Case history
Prior action(s)[1995] 2 AC 454; [1995] 2 All ER 100
Keywords
Union discrimination, freedom of association

Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552 is a United Kingdom labour law and European labour law case concerning discrimination by employers against their workers who join and take action through trade unions. [1] After a long series of appeals through the UK court system, the European Court of Human Rights held that ECHR article 11 protects the fundamental right of people to join a trade union, engage in union related activities and take action as a last resort to protect their interests.

Contents

Facts

Mr Wilson worked for the Daily Mail newspaper. The paper derecognised the National Union of Journalists. Pay was increased for workers who took individual contracts, instead of staying on terms negotiated through collective agreement. Mr Wilson chose not to shift to an individual contract. His salary was not increased as quickly as those of the rest of his colleagues.

Mr Palmer worked for the ports in Southampton. His employer offered him an individual contract, coupled with a 10% pay increase, but on the condition that he would cease to be represented by the union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Mr Palmer refused to move to an individual contract. Unlike that of the other workers, his pay was increased by 8.9%, and he did not benefit as others did from a private medical insurance plan. The company then derecognised the union.

Both parties, together with their union, complained that their right to take part in trade union activities was violated under UK law, and if not that UK law, in particular under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 148(3) failed to comply with international standards, and the European Convention on Human Rights article 11.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

In the Court of Appeal Dillon LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ and Farquharson LJ held [2] that the employers' conduct had infringed the then-effective Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 s 23. The employers' action was intended to deter employees from being trade union members and such deterrence was a wholly foreseeable consequence.

House of Lords

In the House of Lords, Lord Keith, Lord Bridge, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn and Lord Lloyd overturned the Court of Appeal. [3] They held that employers withholding a pay rise from employees was not "action short of dismissal". It was an omission, and should be interpreted as such given the complex legislative history of the provision. Moreover, the Tribunal had never established that the employers' purpose was to deter its employees from joining a union or penalising them from membership. So the legislation here did not protect Wilson or Palmer's activities.

Nicholas Underhill QC and Brian Napier acted for Associated Newspapers, and Patrick Elias QC and Nigel Giffin acted for Associated British Ports, while John Hendy QC and Jennifer Eady acted for Mr Wilson and Jeffrey Burke QC and Peter Clark acted for Mr Palmer.

European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights held that the effect of UK law was to allow employers to treat employees that were unprepared to renounce the right to consult a union less favourably. The use of financial incentives to induce employees to surrender union rights violated ECHR article 11, since it effectively frustrated the union's ability to strive for protection of its members. Unions have the right to make representations to employers and ultimately take action to protect their interests.

  1. The Court observes at the outset that although the essential object of Article 11 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities with the exercise of the rights protected, there may in addition be positive obligations to secure the effective enjoyment of these rights. In the present case, the matters about the applicants complain—principally, the employers' de-recognition of the unions for collective bargaining purposes and offers of more favourable conditions of employment to employees agreeing not to be represented by the unions—did not involve direct intervention by the State. The responsibility of the United Kingdom would, however, be engaged if these matters resulted from a failure on its part to secure to the applicants under domestic law the rights set forth in Article 11 of the Convention.
  2. The Court recalls that Article 11(1) presents trade union freedom as one form or a special aspects of freedom of association. The words "for the protection of his interests" in Article 11(1) are not redundant, and the Convention safeguards freedom to protect the occupational interests of trade union members by trade union action, the conduct and development of which the Contracting States must both permit and make possible. A trade union must thus be free to strive for the protection of its members' interests, and the individual members have a right, in order to protect their interests, that the trade union should be heard. Article 11 does not, however, secure any particular treatment of trade unions or their members and leaves each State a free choice of the means to be used to secure the right to be heard.
  3. The Court notes that, at the time of the events complained of by the applicants, United Kingdom law provided for a wholly voluntary system of collective bargaining, with no legal obligation on employers to recognise trade unions for the purposes of collective bargaining. There was, therefore, no remedy in law by which the applicants could prevent the employers in the present case from de-recognising the unions and refusing to renew the collective bargaining agreements.
  4. However, the Court has consistently held that although collective bargaining may be one of the ways by which trade unions may be enabled to protect their members' interests, it is not indispensable for the effective enjoyment of trade union freedom. Compulsory collective bargaining would impose on employers an obligation to conduct negotiations with trade unions. The Court has not yet been prepared to hold that the freedom of a trade union to make its voice heard extends to imposing on an employer an obligation to recognise a trade union. The union and its members must however be free, in one way or another, to seek to persuade the employer to listen to what it has to say on behalf of its members. In view of the sensitive character of the social and political issues involved in achieving a proper balance between the competing interests and the wide degree of divergence between the domestic systems in this field, the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation as to how trade union freedom may be secured.
  5. The Court observes that there were other measures available to the applicant unions by which they could further their members' interests. In particular, domestic law conferred protection on a trade union which called for or supported strike action "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute". The grant of the right to strike, while it may be subject to regulation, represents one of the most important of the means by which the State may secure a trade union's freedom to protect its members' occupational interests. Against this background, the Court does not consider that the absence under United Kingdom law of an obligation on employers to enter into collective bargaining gave rise, in itself, to a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
  6. The Court agrees with the Government that the essence of a voluntary system of collective bargaining is that it must be possible for a trade union which is not recognised by an employer to take steps including, if necessary, organising industrial action, with a view to persuading the employer to enter into collective bargaining with it on those issues which the union believes are important for its members' interests. Furthermore, it is of the essence of the right to join a trade union for the protection of their interests that employees should be free to instruct or permit the union to make representations to their employer or to take action in support of their interests on their behalf. If workers are prevented from so doing, their freedom to belong to a trade union, for the protection of their interests, becomes illusory. It is the role of the State to ensure that trade union members are not prevented or restrained from using their union to represent them in attempts to regulate their relations with their employers.
  7. In the present case, it was open to the employers to seek to pre-empt any protest on the part of the unions or their members against the imposition of limits on voluntary collective bargaining, by offering those employees who acquiesced in the termination of collective bargaining substantial pay rises, which were not provided to those who refused to sign contracts accepting the end of union representation. The corollary of this was that United Kingdom law permitted employers to treat less favourably employees who were not prepared to renounce a freedom that was an essential feature of union membership. Such conduct constituted a disincentive or restraint on the use by employees of union membership to protect their interests. However, as the House of Lords' judgment made clear, domestic law did not prohibit the employer from offering an inducement to employees who relinquished the right to union representation, even if the aim and outcome of the exercise was to bring an end to collective bargaining and thus substantially to reduce the authority of the union, as long as the employer did not act with the purpose of preventing or deterring the individual employee simply from being a member of a trade union.
  8. Under United Kingdom law at the relevant time it was, therefore, possible for an employer effectively to undermine or frustrate a trade union's ability to strive for the protection of its members' interests. The Court notes that this aspect of domestic law has been the subject of criticism by the Social Charter's Committee of Independent Experts and the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association (see paragraphs 32–33 and 37 above). It considers that, by permitting employers to use financial incentives to induce employees to surrender important union rights, the respondent State has failed in its positive obligation to secure the enjoyment of the rights under Article 11 of the Convention. This failure amounted to a violation of Article 11, as regards both the applicant trade unions and the individual applicants.

Significance

Having been found to stand in breach of international labour law standards in general, and ECHR art 11 in particular, the UK government set about consulting on how to amend TULRCA 1992 to comply with the judgment, but with the objective of changing the law no further than absolutely necessary to comply with the ruling. The result was the Employment Relations Act 2004, which changed, in particular, TULRCA 1992 section 146 to stipulate that all "workers" were protected by the provisions on detriment for union membership and activities.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ E McGaughey, A Casebook on Labour Law (Hart 2018) ch 8, 354
  2. ↑ Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson [1995] 2 All ER 100
  3. ↑ Associated Newspapers Ltd v Wilson [1995] 2 AC 454, [1995] 2 WLR 354

Related Research Articles

Labour laws, labour code or employment laws are those that mediate the relationship between workers, employing entities, trade unions, and the government. Collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, employer, and union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Act of 1935</span> 1935 U.S. federal labor law regulating the rights of workers and unions

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions. The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. It can be described as the right of a person coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights.

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom labour law</span> Labour rights in the UK

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £10.42 for over-23-year-olds from April 2023 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States labor law</span> US laws on fair pay and conditions, unions, democracy, equality and security at work

The rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers are set by labor law in the United States. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There are no federal laws, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

<i>Dunmore v Ontario (AG)</i> 2001 Canadian Supreme Court decision on freedom of association

Dunmore v Ontario (AG), 2001 SCC 94 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that the lack of a positive framework that protected farm workers from employer reprisals for exercising their associational rights under the Charter constituted a "substantial interference" of their right to freedom of association. The Ontario government responded with the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which extended only to agricultural workers and prohibited employer reprisals against employees exercising their rights under section 2(d) of the Charter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is a UK Act of Parliament which regulates United Kingdom labour law. The Act applies in full in England and Wales and in Scotland, and partially in Northern Ireland.

Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.

<i>South Wales Miners Federation v Glamorgan Coal Co</i>

South Wales Miners' Federation v Glamorgan Coal Co. [1905] AC 239 is an old UK labour law case, and part of an infamous three tort cases that imposed liability on trade unions for going on strike.

<i>Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch</i>

Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1941] UKHL 2 is a landmark UK labour law case on the right to take part in collective bargaining. However, the actual decision which appears to allow secondary action may have been limited by developments from the 1980s.

European labour law regulates basic transnational standards of employment and partnership at work in the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights. In setting regulatory floors to competition for job-creating investment within the Union, and in promoting a degree of employee consultation in the workplace, European labour law is viewed as a pillar of the "European social model". Despite wide variation in employment protection and related welfare provision between member states, a contrast is typically drawn with conditions in the United States.

<i>Demir and Baykara v. Turkey</i> 2008 European Court of Human Rights case

Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345 is a landmark European Court of Human Rights case concerning Article 11 ECHR and the right to engage in collective bargaining. It affirmed the fundamental right of workers to engage in collective bargaining and take collective action to achieve that end.

Collective action in the United Kingdom including the right to strike in UK labour law is the main support for collective bargaining. Although the right to strike has attained the status, since 1906, of a fundamental human right, protected in domestic case law, statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and international law, the rules in statute have generated significant litigation. The "right of workers to engage in a strike or other industrial action" is expressly recognised in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 180, and has been recognised repeatedly by the Court of Appeal as "a fundamental human right"., and the House of Lords.

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Work Act 2009</span> Australian industrial relations law

The Fair Work Act 2009(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia, passed by the Rudd government to reform the industrial relations system of Australia. It replaced the Howard government's WorkChoices legislation, it established Fair Work Australia, later renamed the Fair Work Commission.

<i>Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom</i>

Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 4 is a UK labour law case, concerning freedom of association and the closed shop. It found that the closed shop was incompatible with the convention, although it does not prevent fair share agreements, or automatic enrollment in union membership with an opt-out.

National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v United Kingdom [2014] ECHR 366 is a UK labour law case, concerning collective action and the right to take secondary action under ECHR article 11. It held that UK restrictions cannot be questioned on human rights grounds.

<i>Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan</i>

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan [2015] 1 SCR 245 is a Canadian labour law case on the right to strike.

Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v Turkey [2009] ECHR 2251 is a European labour law case, relevant for UK labour law concerning the right to strike.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.