UNION REPS who argue for a strike - however strong the justification- could now be breaking the law.
Last week's High Court judgement forcing striking council employees in East London back to work, simply because their union NALGO campaigned for a 'yes' vote before the ballot, may well prove a landmark in industrial relations history.
A Labour local authority's recourse to Tory anti-union laws has resulted in a further whittling away of workers' basic democratic right to withdraw their labour.
The ruling potentially opens the door for every employer in Britain to silence workplace militants in union positions.
Local government workers in Newham went on strike on August 3 after a ballot of 2,500 NALGO members saw 63 per cent backing for all-out action against compulsory redundancies in the poll tax collection department. On September 1, it took just one judge to overturn their decision.
Mrs Justice Ebsworth graciously conceded that genuine trade dispute was in progress, and the strike itself was properly authorised. But she decided that it was 'clearly arguable' that NALGO had 'promoted' the strike before the ballot, and therefore breached the Employment Act 1990, which rules that there must be no call for action or authorisation of action before a ballot.
The balance of convenience' in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction to stop the strike therefore lav with the bosses, as the dispute was having a 'grave' effect on the performance of its statutory duties.
NALGO general secretary Alan Jinkinson immediately instructed members to go back to work and not even picket the