Strange that the union had passed this information onto the newspapers but they decided not to pass this information on to the public.

Thank alla/god/easter bunny we have an uncorruptable justice system in the UK

An important point to note is this: had Unite bothered to make some basic checks prior to the ballot, they wouldn’t have fallen foul of the ruling.

Given the management’s track record, Unite’s attitude, and the way that BA’s staff have behaved, the lesson can only be: fly anyone but BA.

So there is the nub of the problem. Rules concerning government (and I suspect corporate) elections are subject to reasonability. Rules concerning free association elections are not. I am not sure whether I can agree with Dave on the judgement being political; the system and its interpretation are definitely politicised in favour of the few however.

I should probably point out I particularly loath many of the actions of Unite, who seem to betray their members’ interests regularly. But it should still be defended against such clearly wrong judgements.

If that is so, how can judges rule election irregularities (e.g. undeclared donations) in general elections have not materially affected the outcome?

Possibly because election law is different from that which relates to trade union ballots?

If that is so, how can judges rule election irregularities (e.g. undeclared donations) in general elections have not materially affected the outcome? But although such cases have been proven, no election has been rerun because of this.

But in any case, as I’ve said, this judge was out for political ends as indicated by her remarks and by the fact that she refused appeal.

So this ruling does look very odd at first sight. Yes, there may have been a technical irregularity, but this was not sufficient to overturn the verdict of the electorate in this case. This appears therefore to be a clear case of the law being used against its spirit (here the commendable aim of ensuring that strike action is a democratic decision), even if the letter of the law was followed.

It seems the ballot did not meet the requirements of the law. The judge can’t just say, “well, those 800 people wouldn’t have affected the result either way”, if the law doesn’t allow for it.

In the end, as has been demonstrated on many occassions, the public will vote with their wallets. There are plenty of other competitors out there more than happy to see BA go belly up, at which point all these arguments will become completely irrelevant.

So this ruling does look very odd at first sight. Yes, there may have been a technical irregularity, but this was not sufficient to overturn the verdict of the electorate in this case. This appears therefore to be a clear case of the law being used against its spirit (here the commendable aim of ensuring that strike action is a democratic decision), even if the letter of the law was followed. Libertarians and others of an anti-statist ilk see the habit of judges interpreting the law as a way of supporting the state, and many socialists see a too-close linkage between corporations and the state. Unusually, I think in this case the two view points meet, and the interests of state and business seem to have overruled those of the individual voters. A rather worrying trend.

This is helpful:

“The statutory immunity of trade unions from liability for inducing breach of contract when calling on members to come out on strike or to take other industrial action depends on the union having the support of a ballot. Further, whenever they undertake a ballot concerning proposed industrial action trade unions must give at least seven days notice to the employers of all members entitled to vote, complying with the specific requirements set out in TULRCA 1992 ss.226, 226A and 234A, Failure to comply with these requirements will mean that the unions concerned will forfeit their statutory immunity … The requirements are strictly construed. A union must do everything which could reasonably be required of it to ensure that all relevant members get ballot papers” – EmpLaw

And:

“There is no statutory definition, as such, of “official industrial action” or “official strike”. However, there is a kind of definition, more of a description than a definition, of “unofficial strike” and “unofficial industrial action”. Any strike (often called a “wildcat strike”) or other industrial action which is not authorised or endorsed by a trade union will generally be “unofficial” (TULRCA 1992, s.237(2)). If a strike is endorsed by a trade union without that union having gone through the proper balloting procedure required for strike action pursuant to a trade dispute the union’s funds will be at risk – it will not be entitled to claim immunity from civil action from those who have suffered loss (see Trade union matters/ballots and/or Trade union matters/immunity from civil action in certain cases )..” – EmpLaw

There doesn’t seem to be room for ‘discretion’ there, and you can see why Unite is ‘supine’.

As for the rest, the judge could certainly have used her discretion if the law was so blandly worded. More obviously she might have given the union the right to appeal her judgment

Whilst not being of the legal professions myself, it strikes me as an outcome opposed to common sense where a judge can strike down the ballot on a technicality that had no bearing on the final outcome of the vote anyway.

Many judgements seem contrary to ‘common sense’. But judgements are founded in law, not common sense, because one man’s common sense isn’t the same as another’s.

The judge also ignored the claim by the union that it could not have known who the 800 staff were. I’d be interested to know whether the judge ruled that Unite were lying in this claim or ignored it for some other reason.

It might be irrelevant. If the law merely says, “only current employees may be balloted”, and former employees are balloted, then the ballot is illegitimate. There may be no clause saying, “but if the inclusion or otherwise of former employees would not have effected the ultimate outcome, then the ballot is legitimate”.

I note that there is no link to the judgement.

I’m a little surprised that Unite have rolled over so supinely but it is clear they have no real appetite for this fight.

Bizarrely, this rotten ruling may be in their best interest long term.

As for the relationship between unions, corporations and the Labour Party, it is much more complex than just who funds the party – but in any case the unions only fund 70% of the party, business and individuals fund the rest.

This is an argument for small electoral fraud.

“Oh surprise, surprise, the corporates fund the politicians, who in turn choose the judges, that judge the corprates. ”

Um. The unions fund the governing party.

I don’t know enough about law to know whether your point that the actual illegality itself was of such quantitatively little importance, should carry any weight in the judge’s decision.

Move along, nothing to see here. Look over there……….. SNOW

As far as the judge is concerned the timing is irrelevant. This isn’t firefighters walking out on bonfire night.