RMT v London Underground [2001] 30 ILJ 206
Judgement for the case RMT v London Underground
Table Of Contents
Defendant 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.
For Further Study on RMT v London Underground
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Labour Law | Economic Restructuring Redundancy+ Transfers Of Undertakings Notes (42 pages) |
| Labour Law | Industrial Action Notes (19 pages) |
| Labour Law | Representation At Work Notes (16 pages) |
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.