British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots' Association

Under the current balloting provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, employee categories must be identified sufficiently to enable the employer readily to deduce the relevant workforce numbers and categories. The statutory purpose is not primarily to facilitate employer planning, because Parliament removed that express purpose. General job categories are ordinarily sufficient; the union need not provide a list of internal job descriptions or every operational subdivision. A ballot paper stating the period within which discontinuous industrial action may occur can comply with section 229(2D) without specifying the particular strike dates. Intended dates are addressed by the separate notice provisions in section 234A.

British Airways Plc sought an injunction restraining industrial action proposed by the British Airline Pilots' Association. The application raised three issues under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992: whether the ballot notice adequately described the categories of pilots; whether employees at BA's Waterside headquarters required more precise categorisation by job title; and whether the ballot paper adequately specified the expected period or periods of industrial action.

The court considered the statutory wording, legislative history and authorities concerning industrial-action ballots. The central questions were whether BALPA was more likely than not to establish compliance with the statutory provisions and whether the ballot paper was defective because it identified a six-month period but not the particular dates of discontinuous strikes.

1. Application dismissed. BA had not shown that BALPA was more likely than not to have failed to comply with the relevant provisions. The court applied the approach in National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v Serco Ltd [2011] IRLR 399: the legislation should be construed normally and the interim question was the likelihood of the union establishing its defence at trial.
2. For section 226A, the current statutory language was decisive. Section 226A(2C) required information enabling the employer readily to deduce the total number of employees, their categories and their workplaces. Parliament had removed the former express reference to enabling the employer to plan. Employer planning therefore could not be treated as the primary purpose or as requiring every operational distinction. The relevant question was what “categories” meant in this statutory context.
3. The authorities supported the provision of general job categories rather than the employer's internal job-description structure. London & Birmingham Railway Ltd v Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen [2011] EWCA Civ 226 was helpful on that point. Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Capital PPU, concerned with pilots, might support identifying captains and first officers, but was not authority for a wider requirement because the important statutory change had not been addressed.
4. The Waterside notice was not defective. BA's proposed requirement amounted effectively to a list of job descriptions, which the statute did not require. BALPA had also explained why one employee was identified by job description rather than as a pilot.
5. The ballot paper complied with section 229(2D). A voter informed that discontinuous strike action might occur within the period from 7 August 2019 to 21 January 2020 would understand the possible commitment. Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd v BALPA [2017] EWHC 2253 (QB) provided a cogent and practical approach. Section 234A, read with section 229, showed that Parliament distinguished between the period within which discontinuous action might occur and the intended dates of action. The latter belonged to the employer notice under section 234A.

First-instance decision. No earlier decision in the same proceedings was stated in the judgment.