The High Court judge was right to grant the injunction against Unite

The High Court yesterday granted an eleventh-hour injunction against the planned Unite British Airways strike, and caused controversy by finding the ballot invalid on the smallest of technicalities.

Unite will find out on Thursday if they can appeal the decision, but blogger Iain Dale has already slammed the ruling by the judge. Legal Leanings hates to disagree with such a seasoned blogger, but finds that this is clearly a case of sleeping in the bed that you made.

In 1992, the Conservative government introduced into law the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, which sets out quite clearly the conditions which need to be met in order to validate a ballot by union members.

Section 231 of the said Act (below) sets out the law regarding the publication of the ballot results, and Legal Leanings would like to highlight in particular s 231 (d):

As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of?

(a) votes cast in the ballot,
(b) individuals answering ?Yes? to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,
(c) individuals answering ?No? to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and
(d) spoiled voting papers.

Unite are mad for trying to hold BA to ransom and cause massive disruption to air travellers so soon after the ash cloud troubles. BA are mad for trying to get an injunction based on the smallest of technicalities.

The High Court judge, however, could do nothing but apply the law, which clearly states that the full results of the ballot should be communicated to all those “entitled to vote” – including spoiled ballots!

If Iain wishes to take issue at the ruling, it needs to be at the law itself, not the judge.