Warrington Borough Council v Unite The Union

For an interim injunction against industrial action, the court must apply the usual American Cyanamid principles while giving particular weight to the likelihood that the union will establish statutory immunity under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

A ballot must relate to the trade dispute in support of which the industrial action is taken. The dispute may evolve, and negotiations may produce creative or local solutions, without creating a different dispute. The relevant question is whether the union honestly and genuinely believed that the action continued in furtherance of the dispute identified in the ballot. A union need not call out every balloted worker or list every possible means of resolving the dispute.

The claimant local authority sought an interim injunction restraining Unite from calling upon employees at its Woolston waste-services depot to take discontinuous strike action. The action followed a June 2023 ballot concerning the 2023/24 pay rates of workers whose pay was based on National Joint Council awards.

A national pay agreement was reached on 1 November 2023, but Unite maintained that its dispute with the claimant continued and pursued negotiations concerning pay-related and workplace matters. The claimant contended that the later action concerned a different, localised dispute and was outside the ballot. The central issue was whether Unite was likely to establish at trial that the action remained protected by statutory immunity.

1. Application refused. The claimant had shown serious and substantial consequences from the continuing strike, but the likelihood of statutory protection was a weighty factor against granting interim relief.
2. Under section 221(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the court had to consider the likelihood that Unite would establish a matter providing a defence under section 219. The relevant approach was that stated in NWL Ltd v Woods and Hadmor Productions Ltd v Hamilton. An injunction despite likely statutory protection would be exceptional.
3. The dispute identified by the ballot was objectively understood by the hypothetical reasonable member as concerning the 2023/24 pay deal, including the claimed increase and other elements of the overall pay package. It remained a dispute relating wholly or mainly to employment terms under section 244(1), notwithstanding the national agreement reached on 1 November 2023.
4. The ballot had to relate to the trade dispute supporting the industrial action. That requirement did not demand a technical or exhaustive description of every negotiating issue. Trade disputes may evolve. Local negotiations and creative solutions, including allowances, additional leave, lump-sum payments, job evaluation and arrangements connected with the strike, could form part of the attempt to resolve the original pay dispute.
5. Unite was not required to call out every worker covered by the ballot. Nor did the focus on the Woolston depot establish a different dispute. The evidence made it most likely that Unite honestly and genuinely believed that the continuing action remained directed to the dispute described in the ballot. This was not a case involving merely a lingering grievance, an overridden dispute, or an ulterior purpose.
6. Although the claimant faced serious waste-collection problems, costs and public-health concerns, the balance of convenience did not make this such an exceptional case as to justify an injunction. The application was therefore refused.