Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

RMT v London Underground

[2001] 30 ILJ 206

Case summary last updated at 17/02/2020 21:10 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case RMT v London Underground

D balloted employees and informed that employer (under s.226A and 234A) that the affected employees were employed in all categories at all workplaces on the London underground, CA gave an injunction preventing that strike, saying that the union is obliged to give information as to the numbers of members in particular grades and at particular workplaces, unless and except so far as that information was not in its possession.
 
Robert Walker LJ: These amendments (226A and 234A) may well render it more onerous to go through the procedure to strike because a union was no longer bound to provide a list of names of strikers. He also rejected the possibility that the requirement of providing information is contrary to the HRA/ECHR. 

RMT v London Underground crops up in following areas of law