Category: unison legal

UNISON opinion: Why could tribunal fees be on the way back?

by UNISON’s head of legal services Shantha David

The government is consulting on reintroducing fees in the employment tribunals (ETs). If this becomes law, employees and workers will have to pay a single fee of £55 – whether they are bringing the case by themselves or as part of a group – when seeking to enforce their employment rights against their employer.

An appeal to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) by the party challenging an ET decision will also attract a fee of £55.

Employment tribunals – or industrial tribunals as they were known until 1998 – were set up in the 1970s to provide employees and workers with an informal and accessible forum for the enforcement of employment rights.

Employment law has developed considerably since the inception of the industrial tribunals, and the ET and EAT have jurisdiction to determine more than 70 types of employment claim. Each party has had to bear their own legal costs and these new proposals will not change that.

Unfortunately, the burden of fees to challenge an employer still rests on the shoulders of the worker/employee, even where they are successful. The ability of the winning party to recoup their fee, or indeed the costs of pursuing (or defending) a claim, is a missed opportunity.

Before fees were introduced in 2013, the ETs registered 59,000 cases (individual or multiple claims) in 2012/13. This dropped to 28,000 cases in the following year. After the Supreme Court quashed the fees order, the number of cases increased from 18,000 in 2016/17 to 33,000 cases in 2022/23. Interestingly, case numbers remain below pre-fee levels.

Under the previous regime, fees ranged from £160 to £1,600. Fees were challenged in the courts by UNISON and, following a four-year legal battle – when ET claims dropped by about 69% – the Supreme Court agreed that the unaffordable fees order breached the constitutional right of access to the courts, which was essential to the rule of law and was guaranteed by Magna Carta.

UNISON celebrates its landmark victory over the scrapping of employment tribunal fees at the Supreme Court in London in 2018 with then general secretary Dave Prentis. Westminster, London. United Kingdom

UNISON celebrates its landmark victory over the scrapping of employment tribunal fees at the Supreme Court in London with general secretary Dave Prentis. Westminster, London.

The court ordered the government to reimburse about £35m in fees paid by claimants. To date, only £18.6m in fees and interest has actually been refunded, according to HM Courts & Tribunal Service’s annual report for 2022-23.

Given the government’s previous experience of ET fees, the Ministry of Justice has admitted that the 2013 scheme struck the wrong balance between recouping the costs of running the service and protecting access to justice. When fees were in place, the annual cost of running the ETs and EATS was £65.8m. Costs for 2022-23 totalled £80m.

This time around, the ministry has stated that its rationale for fees in the ET and EAT is “to relieve some of the cost to the general taxpayer by requiring tribunal users to pay for the tribunal system, where they can afford to do so”.

There is to be help with the fees scheme – the lord chancellor will have an exceptional power to remit fees. It is worth noting, however, that this exceptional power was exercised only 31 times between 2015-16, when some 86,130 individual claims (note – not cases) were presented.

In summary then, is it really worth the time and effort of recruiting additional administrative staff to collect fees? Particularly at a time when there are administrative shortages at the ET and EAT, and calls and emails are still being left unanswered.

The new fee regime is forecast to generate £1.3m-£1.7m a year from 2025-26 onwards, with an estimated income of £0.6m-£0.7m from implementation in November 2024 to March 2025.

The consultation does not indicate if these are net or gross sums. Assuming they are net, then this new scheme will only cover only about 1%-2% of the total costs of running the tribunals. What is the point of the scheme, then, other than to be (once more) an impediment to access to justice?

This article first appeared in the Law Society Gazette

The article UNISON opinion: Why could tribunal fees be on the way back? first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON opinion: Why could tribunal fees be on the way back?

by UNISON’s head of legal services Shantha David

The government is consulting on reintroducing fees in the employment tribunals (ETs). If this becomes law, employees and workers will have to pay a single fee of £55 – whether they are bringing the case by themselves or as part of a group – when seeking to enforce their employment rights against their employer.

An appeal to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) by the party challenging an ET decision will also attract a fee of £55.

Employment tribunals – or industrial tribunals as they were known until 1998 – were set up in the 1970s to provide employees and workers with an informal and accessible forum for the enforcement of employment rights.

Employment law has developed considerably since the inception of the industrial tribunals, and the ET and EAT have jurisdiction to determine more than 70 types of employment claim. Each party has had to bear their own legal costs and these new proposals will not change that.

Unfortunately, the burden of fees to challenge an employer still rests on the shoulders of the worker/employee, even where they are successful. The ability of the winning party to recoup their fee, or indeed the costs of pursuing (or defending) a claim, is a missed opportunity.

Before fees were introduced in 2013, the ETs registered 59,000 cases (individual or multiple claims) in 2012/13. This dropped to 28,000 cases in the following year. After the Supreme Court quashed the fees order, the number of cases increased from 18,000 in 2016/17 to 33,000 cases in 2022/23. Interestingly, case numbers remain below pre-fee levels.

Under the previous regime, fees ranged from £160 to £1,600. Fees were challenged in the courts by UNISON and, following a four-year legal battle – when ET claims dropped by about 69% – the Supreme Court agreed that the unaffordable fees order breached the constitutional right of access to the courts, which was essential to the rule of law and was guaranteed by Magna Carta.

UNISON celebrates its landmark victory over the scrapping of employment tribunal fees at the Supreme Court in London in 2018 with then general secretary Dave Prentis. Westminster, London. United Kingdom

UNISON celebrates its landmark victory over the scrapping of employment tribunal fees at the Supreme Court in London with general secretary Dave Prentis. Westminster, London.

The court ordered the government to reimburse about £35m in fees paid by claimants. To date, only £18.6m in fees and interest has actually been refunded, according to HM Courts & Tribunal Service’s annual report for 2022-23.

Given the government’s previous experience of ET fees, the Ministry of Justice has admitted that the 2013 scheme struck the wrong balance between recouping the costs of running the service and protecting access to justice. When fees were in place, the annual cost of running the ETs and EATS was £65.8m. Costs for 2022-23 totalled £80m.

This time around, the ministry has stated that its rationale for fees in the ET and EAT is “to relieve some of the cost to the general taxpayer by requiring tribunal users to pay for the tribunal system, where they can afford to do so”.

There is to be help with the fees scheme – the lord chancellor will have an exceptional power to remit fees. It is worth noting, however, that this exceptional power was exercised only 31 times between 2015-16, when some 86,130 individual claims (note – not cases) were presented.

In summary then, is it really worth the time and effort of recruiting additional administrative staff to collect fees? Particularly at a time when there are administrative shortages at the ET and EAT, and calls and emails are still being left unanswered.

The new fee regime is forecast to generate £1.3m-£1.7m a year from 2025-26 onwards, with an estimated income of £0.6m-£0.7m from implementation in November 2024 to March 2025.

The consultation does not indicate if these are net or gross sums. Assuming they are net, then this new scheme will only cover only about 1%-2% of the total costs of running the tribunals. What is the point of the scheme, then, other than to be (once more) an impediment to access to justice?

This article first appeared in the Law Society Gazette

The article UNISON opinion: Why could tribunal fees be on the way back? first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON given go-ahead to join judicial review of government inaction over Windrush

UNISON has been given the go-ahead to join a legal challenge of former home secretary Suella Braverman’s decision to renege on three key recommendations made by the Windrush scandal inquiry.

In December, a High Court judge granted a private individual, Trevor Donald, permission to lodge a judicial review of Ms Braverman’s actions, in a hearing that is likely be heard some time between March and May this year.

At the same time, both UNISON and civil rights group the Black Equity Organisation (BEO) were granted permission to ‘intervene’, or join the case. Each will be able to give evidence and argue their position when the matter comes to court.

UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea said today: “This is a landmark case to tackle a dreadful injustice caused by this grim period of recent history. Hundreds of lives and relationships have been torn apart by this government’s cruel and catastrophic decisions.

“Prior to and since the Windrush scandal broke, UNISON has worked actively to represent people who have been similarly affected by the “hostile environment”, through no fault of their own. It’s important for the union to be part of this case, to ensure all those affected have the best chance to rebuild what they’ve lost.”

The Windrush scandal came to light in 2018, when it was revealed that members of the Windrush generation were being declared “immigration offenders” and denied access to public services, housing and jobs. At least 83 people were wrongly deported despite having the right to live and work in the UK.

‘Ignorance and thoughtlessness’

Led by Wendy Williams, the inquiry published its findings, the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, in March 2020. It concluded that the Home Office had shown “ignorance and thoughtlessness” on race throughout the scandal, that immigration regulations were tightened “with complete disregard for the Windrush generation” and officials had made “irrational” demands for multiple documents to establish residency rights.

Ms Williams made 30 recommendations to avoid a repeat of the scandal, and the then-home secretary Priti Patel confirmed an action plan to implement them. Key among these was a commitment to create the post of a migrants’ commissioner, who would be responsible for speaking up for migrants and identifying systemic problems within the UK immigration system.

However, in January 2023 the new home secretary, Ms Braverman, decided to abandon the commitment to the commissioner role alongside the commitment to strengthen the powers of the immigration watchdog and to run reconciliation events with Windrush families.

UNISON litigation

UNISON launched its litigation in June 2023, during the Year of the Black Worker. The union believes that both the migrants’ commissioner and a strengthened watchdog would help to protect against a future ‘Windrush scandal’, allowing for greater protections for migrant workers and act as a break on yet more inhumane policies towards refugees.

The claimant in the judicial review, Mr Donald, is a member of the Windrush generation who arrived in the UK in 1967, aged 12, and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1971.

Yet, when he visited Jamaica in 2010, to attend his mother’s funeral, he was prevented from returning to the UK and, effectively, exiled for nine years – until the scandal of which he was one of many victims finally came to light.

UNISON’s application to the High Court was supported by evidence  from UNISON member Michael Braithwaite, a London teaching assistant, working in particular with children with special educational needs, who lost his job due to the Windrush scandal, “a total nightmare that destroyed my life.”

When he learned of Ms Braverman’s reversal of the government commitment, Mr Braithwaite’s view was that, “It felt like we were being treated as if we didn’t matter again, as if no one really cared about what had happened… What scares me is that the hostile environment is still with us.”

Surviving the Windrush scandal

 

The article UNISON given go-ahead to join judicial review of government inaction over Windrush first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON given go-ahead to join judicial review of government inaction over Windrush

UNISON has been given the go-ahead to join a legal challenge of former home secretary Suella Braverman’s decision to renege on three key recommendations made by the Windrush scandal inquiry.

In December, a High Court judge granted a private individual, Trevor Donald, permission to lodge a judicial review of Ms Braverman’s actions, in a hearing that is likely be heard some time between March and May this year.

At the same time, both UNISON and civil rights group the Black Equity Organisation (BEO) were granted permission to ‘intervene’, or join the case. Each will be able to give evidence and argue their position when the matter comes to court.

UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea said today: “This is a landmark case to tackle a dreadful injustice caused by this grim period of recent history. Hundreds of lives and relationships have been torn apart by this government’s cruel and catastrophic decisions.

“Prior to and since the Windrush scandal broke, UNISON has worked actively to represent people who have been similarly affected by the “hostile environment”, through no fault of their own. It’s important for the union to be part of this case, to ensure all those affected have the best chance to rebuild what they’ve lost.”

The Windrush scandal came to light in 2018, when it was revealed that members of the Windrush generation were being declared “immigration offenders” and denied access to public services, housing and jobs. At least 83 people were wrongly deported despite having the right to live and work in the UK.

‘Ignorance and thoughtlessness’

Led by Wendy Williams, the inquiry published its findings, the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, in March 2020. It concluded that the Home Office had shown “ignorance and thoughtlessness” on race throughout the scandal, that immigration regulations were tightened “with complete disregard for the Windrush generation” and officials had made “irrational” demands for multiple documents to establish residency rights.

Ms Williams made 30 recommendations to avoid a repeat of the scandal, and the then-home secretary Priti Patel confirmed an action plan to implement them. Key among these was a commitment to create the post of a migrants’ commissioner, who would be responsible for speaking up for migrants and identifying systemic problems within the UK immigration system.

However, in January 2023 the new home secretary, Ms Braverman, decided to abandon the commitment to the commissioner role alongside the commitment to strengthen the powers of the immigration watchdog and to run reconciliation events with Windrush families.

UNISON litigation

UNISON launched its litigation in June 2023, during the Year of the Black Worker. The union believes that both the migrants’ commissioner and a strengthened watchdog would help to protect against a future ‘Windrush scandal’, allowing for greater protections for migrant workers and act as a break on yet more inhumane policies towards refugees.

The claimant in the judicial review, Mr Donald, is a member of the Windrush generation who arrived in the UK in 1967, aged 12, and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1971.

Yet, when he visited Jamaica in 2010, to attend his mother’s funeral, he was prevented from returning to the UK and, effectively, exiled for nine years – until the scandal of which he was one of many victims finally came to light.

UNISON’s application to the High Court was supported by evidence  from UNISON member Michael Braithwaite, a London teaching assistant, working in particular with children with special educational needs, who lost his job due to the Windrush scandal, “a total nightmare that destroyed my life.”

When he learned of Ms Braverman’s reversal of the government commitment, Mr Braithwaite’s view was that, “It felt like we were being treated as if we didn’t matter again, as if no one really cared about what had happened… What scares me is that the hostile environment is still with us.”

Surviving the Windrush scandal

 

The article UNISON given go-ahead to join judicial review of government inaction over Windrush first appeared on the UNISON National site.

Q&A: Who could be entitled to thousands in unpaid wages?

Many UK workers could be entitled to thousands of pounds unfairly taken from their pay following a landmark Supreme Court ruling in a successful challenge brought by UNISON.

The case was between police workers (officers and staff) and their employer: the Northern Ireland police force. Formally titled Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew, the case was about underpayment of holiday pay over a period of 25 years.

UNISON intervened in the case and the workers won. Here, the union’s head of legal services, Shantha David, explains exactly what happened – and what this means for all workers.

How did this case end up in the Supreme Court?

In short, police workers in Northern Ireland who were regularly working overtime had not seen pay for their additional hours reflected in their holiday pay.

In 2018, when the workers took their case to an employment tribunal, the judge ruled that the Police Service of Northern Ireland had made unlawful deductions from the holiday pay of almost 4,000 officers and civilian staff since 1998.

While the Police Service accepted the workers had been underpaid, they disputed the period of time (and back pay) for which the staff could recover the money. This was the focus of UNISON’s challenge in the case.

Employment law requires that claims for wage deductions are brought to a tribunal within three months, and that other previous similar deductions can also be claimed. For example, if regular overtime was omitted in a person’s recent holiday, and this was also previously the case, then this was a series of linked deductions, and they could both be claimed at a tribunal.

However, a piece of case law, from an Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2016 (Fulton v Bear Scotland Ltd), said that, if the incorrectly calculated holiday pay deductions were broken by gaps three months or more, it would break the link between these deductions (and so workers wouldn’t be able to claim past the most recent underpayment).

Why did UNISON get involved?

We saw that this was an opportunity to correct this bad piece of case law (Fulton v Bear Scotland Ltd), which could have a huge impact on workers across Britain, not just Northern Ireland.

Our argument was that a gap of three months or more between deductions would not break the chain between them, and that in effect, the police staff were entitled to recover all of their historic underpayments, not just the most recent.

What was the outcome?

The Supreme Court agreed with us that gaps of three months or more would not break the chain between underpayments. This now means that workers in Northern Ireland can make back-dated claims for indefinite periods of underpayment, and workers in Britain can also make back pay claims, but only going back up to two years.

So what does this mean now?

Thanks to UNISON, who led the arguments in the UK Supreme Court, workers can challenge ongoing, linked underpayments in their wages, even if there is a gap of three months or more between the underpayments.

Who does this impact?

All workers, regardless of the type of contract you’re on. It’s not just salaried employees, it includes people on zero-hours contracts too.

How do workers identify underpayments?

People need to check their pay slips and see whether any element of pay has not been reflected in their holiday pay. If someone does regular overtime and this hasn’t been reflected in holiday pay, or you receive commission pay or bonuses that also haven’t been reflected, this could mean you have a claim.

Every worker is entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid annual leave. Some contracts may say employees get more than that. If, week on week, you do overtime and get bonus payments, and that isn’t included in holiday pay, you may have a claim. In the police service case, they all did regular overtime and that wasn’t included in their holiday pay.

Another way this might be identified is if you see that your employer suddenly corrects your holiday pay.

If I see I have been underpaid, or my employer suddenly corrects my holiday pay, how can I claim this money back?

Speak to your UNISON rep and local branch about it, to see whether you can bring an unlawful deduction of wages claim through an employment tribunal.

You must act quickly because, to bring the claim to an employment tribunal, the last deducted payment must have been in the last three months – but you may be entitled to claims that go much further back.

How much can you claim back?

For workers in Britain, claims can go back up to two years. For Northern Ireland, claims can go back indefinitely. It’s estimated that the police workers in Northern Ireland are owed around £40m in total.

Does it only apply to holiday pay, or any other types of underpayment?

It’s not just about holiday pay. It can also apply to maternity and paternity pay, commission pay, bonus pay or even one-off payments for trade union activities.

The article Q&A: Who could be entitled to thousands in unpaid wages? first appeared on the UNISON National site.

Q&A: Who could be entitled to thousands in unpaid wages?

Many UK workers could be entitled to thousands of pounds unfairly taken from their pay following a landmark Supreme Court ruling in a successful challenge brought by UNISON.

The case was between police workers (officers and staff) and their employer: the Northern Ireland police force. Formally titled Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew, the case was about underpayment of holiday pay over a period of 25 years.

UNISON intervened in the case and the workers won. Here, the union’s head of legal services, Shantha David, explains exactly what happened – and what this means for all workers.

How did this case end up in the Supreme Court?

In short, police workers in Northern Ireland who were regularly working overtime had not seen pay for their additional hours reflected in their holiday pay.

In 2018, when the workers took their case to an employment tribunal, the judge ruled that the Police Service of Northern Ireland had made unlawful deductions from the holiday pay of almost 4,000 officers and civilian staff since 1998.

While the Police Service accepted the workers had been underpaid, they disputed the period of time (and back pay) for which the staff could recover the money. This was the focus of UNISON’s challenge in the case.

Employment law requires that claims for wage deductions are brought to a tribunal within three months, and that other previous similar deductions can also be claimed. For example, if regular overtime was omitted in a person’s recent holiday, and this was also previously the case, then this was a series of linked deductions, and they could both be claimed at a tribunal.

However, a piece of case law, from an Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2016 (Fulton v Bear Scotland Ltd), said that, if the incorrectly calculated holiday pay deductions were broken by gaps three months or more, it would break the link between these deductions (and so workers wouldn’t be able to claim past the most recent underpayment).

Why did UNISON get involved?

We saw that this was an opportunity to correct this bad piece of case law (Fulton v Bear Scotland Ltd), which could have a huge impact on workers across Britain, not just Northern Ireland.

Our argument was that a gap of three months or more between deductions would not break the chain between them, and that in effect, the police staff were entitled to recover all of their historic underpayments, not just the most recent.

What was the outcome?

The Supreme Court agreed with us that gaps of three months or more would not break the chain between underpayments. This now means that workers in Northern Ireland can make back-dated claims for indefinite periods of underpayment, and workers in Britain can also make back pay claims, but only going back up to two years.

So what does this mean now?

Thanks to UNISON, who led the arguments in the UK Supreme Court, workers can challenge ongoing, linked underpayments in their wages, even if there is a gap of three months or more between the underpayments.

Who does this impact?

All workers, regardless of the type of contract you’re on. It’s not just salaried employees, it includes people on zero-hours contracts too.

How do workers identify underpayments?

People need to check their pay slips and see whether any element of pay has not been reflected in their holiday pay. If someone does regular overtime and this hasn’t been reflected in holiday pay, or you receive commission pay or bonuses that also haven’t been reflected, this could mean you have a claim.

Every worker is entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid annual leave. Some contracts may say employees get more than that. If, week on week, you do overtime and get bonus payments, and that isn’t included in holiday pay, you may have a claim. In the police service case, they all did regular overtime and that wasn’t included in their holiday pay.

Another way this might be identified is if you see that your employer suddenly corrects your holiday pay.

If I see I have been underpaid, or my employer suddenly corrects my holiday pay, how can I claim this money back?

Speak to your UNISON rep and local branch about it, to see whether you can bring an unlawful deduction of wages claim through an employment tribunal.

You must act quickly because, to bring the claim to an employment tribunal, the last deducted payment must have been in the last three months – but you may be entitled to claims that go much further back.

How much can you claim back?

For workers in Britain, claims can go back up to two years. For Northern Ireland, claims can go back indefinitely. It’s estimated that the police workers in Northern Ireland are owed around £40m in total.

Does it only apply to holiday pay, or any other types of underpayment?

It’s not just about holiday pay. It can also apply to maternity and paternity pay, commission pay, bonus pay or even one-off payments for trade union activities.

The article Q&A: Who could be entitled to thousands in unpaid wages? first appeared on the UNISON National site.

Strike-breaking legislation is unlawful, argues UNISON in High Court

General Secretary Christina McAnea (centre) with UNISON’s legal team outside the High Court this week

UNISON is challenging the government this week over regulations that allow employers to hire agency staff to replace striking workers.

Alongside the NASUWT and TUC, whose case is on behalf of eleven unions, UNISON asks that the High Court declares the government’s removal of regulation on agency workers unlawful. Together, the unions represent millions of workers in the UK.

Since 1976, it has been illegal for employers to introduce or supply agency workers to replace workers who are taking part in a strike or industrial action.

However, in the heat of last summer’s rail strikes, then Secretary of State Kwasi Kwarteng rapidly removed this regulation without consulting trade unions. 

Since July 2022, agencies have been permitted to supply temporary workers to replace striking workers.

UNISON, the TUC and NASUWT argue that this is unlawful on two grounds: firstly, that trade unions were not fairly consulted by the government on these measures. Secondly, that the removal of this regulation amounts to an unlawful interference with workers’ right to strike.

Change without consultation

The Conservative government’s intention to allow employers to undermine strikes with agency workers was first included in their 2015 manifesto, with a declaration to “repeal nonsensical restrictions banning employers from hiring agency staff to provide essential cover during strikes”. 

In 2015, the government ran a consultation on proposals to remove the regulation on replacing striking workers with agency workers, but did not progress the proposal.

It was not until 2022 – two governments later and no further mention of regulating strikes in subsequent manifestos – that the government decided to remove agency workers regulations without consulting unions. By that time, all unions faced significant limits to taking industrial action due to the Trade Union Act 2016.

The government claims that the 2015 consultation is sufficient, despite multiple new governments and major changes in the labour market since Brexit, COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis.  

Representing UNISON, Michael Ford KC said a “reliance on seven-year old consultation is so unfair as to be unlawful.”

In her witness statement, UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea described how “ever since the financial crisis in 2008, the pay of our members has not kept pace with inflation, and it is this which is generating greater calls for industrial action.” 

Ms McAnea also described the significant negative impact of the Trade Union Act 2016 on the union’s ability to take strike action. 

Protecting the right to strike

The right to strike and engage in collective bargaining falls within article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act. 

UNISON told the judge in a written case outline: “The replacement of strikers by agency labour has the potential to have a chilling effect, or render the right to strike illusory”. 

Given that taking strike action is such a core area of trade union activity, the unions believe that restrictions on the right to strike amount to a violation of article 11 ECHR.

The union also stated that the use of agency workers “defeats the very purpose of a strike, which is to place economic pressure on an employer.”

The case was heard this week at the Royal Courts of Justice. Mr Justice Linden has reserved judgment and is expected to make a decision on the case within the next month.

The article Strike-breaking legislation is unlawful, argues UNISON in High Court first appeared on the UNISON National site.

UNISON to challenge government strike-breaking laws at High Court

Tomorrow, UNISON will be challenging the government’s new strike-breaking laws in the High Court.

Since 1976, it has been unlawful for employers to introduce or supply agency workers to replace workers who are taking part in a strike or industrial action. For decades, it has been a criminal offence to knowingly supply agency workers on strike days.

However, in the heat of last summer’s rail strikes, the government rapidly removed this key regulation without consulting trade unions. Since July 2022, agencies have been legally permitted to supply temporary workers to replace striking workers.

UNISON argues that this is unlawful and violates fundamental trade union rights.

The case will be heard at the High Court on 3 and 4 May this week alongside two parallel cases, brought by the NASUWT and the TUC, whose case is on behalf of eleven unions.

Describing the regulations as “impractical and dangerous”, UNISON director of legal services, Adam Creme said: “These regulations allow employers to bus in people who are not qualified with the sole intention of breaking legitimate industrial action.

“UNISON is deeply concerned about this government’s repeated attempts to remove rights from workers and trade unions.”

UNISON general secretary Christina McAnea said: “Breaking strikes with unqualified and ill-experienced agency workers doesn’t address the root causes of why people are striking, and it only puts the public in danger.”

The article UNISON to challenge government strike-breaking laws at High Court first appeared on the UNISON National site.