Metroline Travel Ltd & Ors v Unite the Union

Statutory notices for industrial action must enable the employer readily to deduce the total number of employees concerned, their categories and numbers, and their workplaces and numbers. A description is insufficient where its meaning depends on uncertain concepts such as working directly or indirectly on a contract, being associated with the work, or merely being expected to perform it. Later clarification cannot cure a notice that failed to provide the information within the statutory period. The requirement is assessed by reference to information in the union’s possession at the relevant time. The de minimis principle does not apply where the uncertainty affects the identification of the balloted or affected employees. Interim injunctive relief is appropriate where the union is unlikely to establish statutory compliance and damages are inadequate.

Three bus companies sought interim injunctions restraining Unite from inducing employees to breach their contracts by taking discontinuous strike action concerning a proposed Olympic and Paralympic Games bonus.

The applications alleged non-compliance with Part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The ballot and strike notices referred to drivers, engineering grades and supervisory grades working on Transport for London contracts on a full-time or part-time basis. The companies contended that they could not readily deduce which employees were included. Unite relied on subsequent correspondence, the information in its possession, and the de minimis principle.

The central questions were whether the statutory information had been supplied and whether interim relief should be granted.

1. The applications were granted and interim injunctions issued. The court considered that Unite was unlikely at trial to establish compliance with the statutory notification requirements.

2. The purpose of the notice provisions was to enable an employer to identify the relevant part or parts of its workforce and prepare for industrial action. Under section 226A(2C) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the information had to enable the employers readily to deduce the total number concerned, the employee categories and numbers in each, and the relevant workplaces and numbers.

3. The phrase “working on TfL contracts either on a full time or part time basis” was imprecise. The subsequent explanations showed that the union included employees who might be expected to work on TfL contracts, were associated with TfL work, or worked directly or indirectly on such contracts. The original notices did not make those matters clear. The employers therefore could not readily deduce the statutory information.

4. The statutory accuracy obligation was assessed by reference to information in the union’s possession when it complied with the notice requirement. The court focused on information available through the union’s paid officers. The absence of a legal obligation to provide names did not remove the obligation to provide sufficiently intelligible information.

5. The de minimis principle did not apply. The uncertainty was not confined to a small numerical error but affected the definition of the relevant constituency and the identity of employees working indirectly on TfL contracts.

6. The companies had not delayed unreasonably. Damages were inadequate, and the balance of convenience—including the serious inconvenience to the travelling public—firmly favoured relief. Time for service and hearing was appropriately abridged.