Thames Cleaning and Support Services Ltd v United Voices of the World & Anor (Rev 1)

Interim relief concerning industrial protest should identify the unlawful conduct said to be threatened, rather than prohibit a vaguely defined “picket”. Statutory protection for peaceful picketing under Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s 220, applies to qualifying workers and union officials acting within its terms. It does not protect third parties who attend to demonstrate or engage in direct action. Lawful protest remains protected by Articles 10 and 11, but an injunction may restrain protest that probably would involve intimidation, harassment, public disorder or other actionable unlawful means. A geographical exclusion zone may be appropriate if it is clear, workable and proportionate, while preserving lawful picketing within s 220.

The claimant cleaning company sought continuation of an interim injunction against a trade union and its general secretary during industrial action at an office building. The proposed order restrained the organisation or facilitation of picketing unless it complied with s 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Code of Practice on Picketing 1992. The claimant alleged that the defendants threatened mass picketing, disruptive direct action, trespass, obstruction, intimidation and other unlawful conduct. The defendants argued that the proposed activities were lawful protest protected by freedom of expression and assembly.

The central issues were whether unlawful and actionable protest was probably threatened, and whether an injunction could be framed without restraining lawful industrial picketing or protest.

1. Disposition. The court refused an anti-picketing injunction. The evidence did not show a substantial risk that the workers or union officials who might benefit from s 220 would organise or attend unlawful picketing. The claimant was, however, entitled in principle to a narrower injunction addressing threatened mass protest or demonstration by members of the public and other third parties.
2. An injunction must state clearly what conduct is prohibited. “Picket” has no sufficiently precise legal meaning for use in the proposed order. It was also inappropriate to define prohibited conduct by reference to the Code, which is guidance rather than law and includes evaluative provisions such as the recommendation that pickets should generally not exceed six at an entrance.
3. Section 220 protects qualifying persons attending at or near a workplace for the purpose only of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or peacefully persuading people to work or abstain from working. Third parties who have never worked at the premises do not obtain that immunity. Nor does the immunity cover protest or direct action that is not peaceful picketing.
4. The court applied the approach required by s 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and s 221(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992: it assessed the probable outcome at trial, while giving particular regard to Article 10 where engaged. The correspondence, videos and evidence probably established an intended noisy, intimidating mass protest by persons unconnected with the workers, aimed at harassing the claimant and pressuring it to concede the union’s demands.
5. Freedom of expression protects speech that embarrasses or offends, and an injunction could not prohibit such lawful protest merely because it occurred at the premises. But protest may become unlawful through public disorder, harassment, intimidation, obstruction or other interference with the rights of others. The claimant had shown a probable risk of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.
6. A geographical exclusion zone was a legitimate and proportionate method of restraining the threatened unlawful conduct. The order should not extend to lawful s 220 picketing by up to six qualifying persons at any entrance or exit. The exclusion zone was therefore limited to 10 metres from each entrance or exit, subject to that proviso. Counsel were to address the final wording.