BA strike court ruling is not a victory for common sense
Who will be the heroes of the next revolution? Political idealists? Trade union activists?
On the basis of British Airways (LON:BAY) success in quashing the latest strike attempt by cabin crews, it looks like it will have to be lawyers who lead the next peoples’ uprising.
The judge ruled the proposed 20-day strike illegal on what can only be considered legal technicalities. Those who insist the law is the law may not mind, but anyone who hope judges can apply the spirit of the law as well as the letter should be worried.
The Unite union held a ballot of its members in December but a court judged it illegal because the voting list was out of date. Crews were thus balloted again in February and voted overwhelmingly to strike.
The law requires the union to publicise the result, stating how many voted, which way – and how many papers were spoiled. More than 11,000 workers voted but the union failed to mention the 11 spoiled papers. Even though those 11 could not have changed the vote, they were enough to make the poll invalid. Publicising the result on notice boards, websites and the union newsletter was also considered inadequate in case some people did not see it.
Few will argue with the outcome of the court’s verdict but we should be concerned at the reasons for forcing the unions to call off the strike pending an appeal or new ballot. If we want judges to make common-sense decisions they should be allowed discretion to declare an imperfect ballot legal when the imperfections could not affect the result.
Where would the general election be if every minor mistake in electoral rolls, polling-station practice or the counting process resulted in the whole vote being declared invalid and held again? And while BA may have won on a technicality this time, this unnecessarily strict interpretation of law could in future count against companies. It might even open shareholders’ meetings to constant challenge.
Turning industrial relations into a contest between lawyers is not a solution to anything. And giving the trade unions reason to think the judiciary is part of an establishment conspiracy with capitalist companies does not help.
In one sense, British Airways was lucky this time. It got what it – and its shareholders and passengers – wanted because of a piece of legalistic pedantry. But in another sense the union was luckier: the court’s ruling came so late that the airline’s schedules remained disrupted for several days. Unite thus achieved its objective of inconveniencing passengers without its own workers losing pay.
