This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

London Underground v NUR [1996] ICR 170

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 07:02

Judgement for the case London Underground v NUR

Table Of Contents

  • The union balloted for a strike.

  • Before the ballot it gave the employer a list of members it indeed to call on to strike (who were employees of Plaintiff). After the ballot it gave notice to the employer of names who it would call on to strike, including names of people not on the original list, but who had joined subsequently to the ballot.

  • The employer tried to argue that the ballot was only valid for those who actually voted in it.

    • Thus the immunity of the union and employees would not extend with respect to members who joined subsequent to the ballot and it asked for an injunction to stop the union from inducing the new members to strike.

  • CA rejected this request, holding that it was not the participation of an individual in the strike that required a ballot, but the industrial action itself.

Millet LJ

  • Right to industrial action is a

Right which was first conferred by Parliament in 1906, which has been enjoyed by trade unions ever since and which is today recognised as encompassing a fundamental human right.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on London Underground v NUR

Labour Law Notes
1,003 total pages
272 purchased

Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Labour Law Notes
1,003 total pages
272 purchased

Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...