Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom
Encyclopedia
Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552 is a UK labour law and European labour law
case concerning discrimination by employers against their workers who join and take action through trade unions. After a long series of appeals through the UK court system, the European Court of Human Rights
held that ECHR article 11 protects the fundamental right of people to join a trade union, engage in union related activities and take action as a last resort to protect their interests.
newspaper. The paper derecognised the National Union of Journalists
. Pay was increased for workers who took individual contracts, instead of staying on terms negotiated through collective agreement. Mr Wilson chose not to shift to an individual contract. His salary was not increased as quickly as the rest of his colleagues.
Mr Palmer worked for the ports in Southampton. His employer offered him an individual contract, coupled with a 10 per cent pay increase, but on the condition that he would cease to be represented by the union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
. Mr Palmer refused to move to an individual contract. Unlike the other workers, his pay was increased by 8.9 per cent, and did not benefits as others did from a private medical insurance plan. The company then derecognised the union.
Both parties, together with their union, complained that their right to take part in trade union activities was violated under UK law, and if not that UK law, in particular under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
section 148(3) failed to comply with international standards, and the European Convention on Human Rights
article 11.
s 23. The employers' action was intended to deter employees from being trade union members and such deterrence was a wholly foreseeable consequence.
Nicholas Underhill QC and Brian Napier acted for Associated Newspapers, and Patrick Elias QC and Nigel Giffin acted for Associated British Ports, while John Hendy QC and Jennifer Eady acted for Mr Wilson and Jeffrey Burke QC and Peter Clark acted for Mr Palmer.
, which changed, in particular, TULRCA 1992 section 146 to stipulate that all "workers" were protected by the provisions on detriment for union membership and activities.
European labour law
European labour law is the developing field of laws relating to rights of employment and partnership at work within the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights.-Treaties:...
case concerning discrimination by employers against their workers who join and take action through trade unions. After a long series of appeals through the UK court system, the European Court of Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
held that ECHR article 11 protects the fundamental right of people to join a trade union, engage in union related activities and take action as a last resort to protect their interests.
Facts
Mr Wilson worked for the Daily MailDaily Mail
The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. First published in 1896 by Lord Northcliffe, it is the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun. Its sister paper The Mail on Sunday was launched in 1982...
newspaper. The paper derecognised the National Union of Journalists
National Union of Journalists
The National Union of Journalists is a trade union for journalists in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It was founded in 1907 and has 38,000 members. It is a member of the International Federation of Journalists .-Structure:...
. Pay was increased for workers who took individual contracts, instead of staying on terms negotiated through collective agreement. Mr Wilson chose not to shift to an individual contract. His salary was not increased as quickly as the rest of his colleagues.
Mr Palmer worked for the ports in Southampton. His employer offered him an individual contract, coupled with a 10 per cent pay increase, but on the condition that he would cease to be represented by the union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers is a trade union in the United Kingdom which unionises transport workers. It has more than 80,000 members, and its current general secretary is Bob Crow...
. Mr Palmer refused to move to an individual contract. Unlike the other workers, his pay was increased by 8.9 per cent, and did not benefits as others did from a private medical insurance plan. The company then derecognised the union.
Both parties, together with their union, complained that their right to take part in trade union activities was violated under UK law, and if not that UK law, in particular under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 is a UK Act of Parliament which regulates British labour law. The Act applies in full in England and Wales and in Scotland, and partially in Northern Ireland....
section 148(3) failed to comply with international standards, and the European Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953...
article 11.
Court of Appeal
In the Court of Appeal Dillon LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ and Farquharson, LJ held that the employers' conduct had infringed the then effective Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
Employment Protection Act 1978 was a UK Act of Parliament that formed a central part of UK labour law. Its descendant is the Employment Rights Act 1996. It consolidated two pieces of legislation, the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 and the Redundancy Payments Act 1965.-External links:**...
s 23. The employers' action was intended to deter employees from being trade union members and such deterrence was a wholly foreseeable consequence.
House of Lords
In the House of Lords, Lord Keith, Lord Bridge, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn and Lord Lloyd overturned the Court of Appeal. They held that employers withholding a pay rise from employees was not "action short of dismissal". It was an omission, and should be interpreted as such given the complex legislative history of the provision. Moreover, the Tribunal had never established that the employers' purpose was to deter its employees from joining a union or penalising them from membership. So the legislation here did not protect Wilson or Palmer’s activities.Nicholas Underhill QC and Brian Napier acted for Associated Newspapers, and Patrick Elias QC and Nigel Giffin acted for Associated British Ports, while John Hendy QC and Jennifer Eady acted for Mr Wilson and Jeffrey Burke QC and Peter Clark acted for Mr Palmer.
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights held that the effect of UK law was to allow employers to treat employees that were unprepared to renounce the right to consult a union less favourably. The use of financial incentives to induce employees to surrender union rights violated ECHR article 11, since it effectively frustrated the union’s ability to strive for protection of its members. Unions have the right to make representations to employers and ultimately take action to protect their interests.Significance
Having been found to stand in breach of international labour law standards in general, and ECHR art 11 in particular, the UK government set about consulting on how to amend TULRCA 1992 to comply with the judgment, but with the objective of changing the law no further than absolutely necessary to comply with the ruling. The result was the Employment Relations Act 2004Employment Relations Act 2004
The Employment Relations Act 2004 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.-Section 59 - Citation, commencement and extent:The following orders have been made under this section:* *...
, which changed, in particular, TULRCA 1992 section 146 to stipulate that all "workers" were protected by the provisions on detriment for union membership and activities.
See also
- Demir and Baykara v TurkeyDemir and Baykara v TurkeyDemir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] is a landmark European Court of Human Rights case concerning Article 11 ECHR and the right to engage in collective bargaining...
[2008] ECHR 1345