Picketing
[ch 6: pages 179-181]Under section 220, TULRCA, workers “in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute” can lawfully picket at or near their place of work, provided that the purpose is only peacefully to obtain or communicate information, or persuade any person not to work.
The TUA16, once in force, will make a significant change to picketing law. Section 10 of the TUA16 introduces a new requirement for union supervision of pickets (new section 220A, TULRCA). Failure to comply will make the picket unlawful and the protection of the immunities will be lost.
Under the new rules, the union will be required to appoint a picket supervisor who must be an official or other member of the union who is familiar with the Picketing Code of Practice. The union or the picket supervisor must take reasonable steps to tell the police his or her name, where the picketing will be taking place, and how to contact the picket supervisor.
Under the new law, the union will be required to give the picket supervisor a letter stating that the picketing is approved by the union. If the employer, or someone acting on behalf of the employer, asks to see the letter, the picket supervisor must show it to them as soon as reasonably practicable. During the picketing, the picket supervisor will be required to be present where the picket is taking place or be “readily contactable by the union and the police and able to attend at short notice”. While present on the picket line, the supervisor will be required to wear “something” that readily identifies him or her as such. The new law contains nothing to accommodate, for example, the possibility of a picket supervisor having childcare responsibilities or working part-time.
There is nothing in the TUA16 to limit the use made by the police of the names and contact details supplied in this way, although data protection laws would apply. Information about an individual’s membership of a trade union is “sensitive personal data” under the Data Protection Act 1998. Serious concerns have been raised about the chilling effect of this new obligation to give contact details to the police, especially given the risks of blacklisting and trade union victimisation, outlined in Chapter 5.
Picketing without a picket supervisor under the new law will not make the whole strike unlawful, but pickets will no longer be protected against claims for inducing contract breach.
Regarding the location of the picket, if workers are not able to picket immediately in front of their workplace, the requirement in section 220, TULRCA, that the picket must be “at or near” their place of work allows some leeway:
Workers dismissed by a company sited on a trading estate were unable to picket their own workplace so they mounted a picket on the entrance to the estate. The Court of Appeal ruled that this was “at or near” their place of work since it was the nearest the pickets could get to their place of work without committing a trespass.
Rayware v TGWU [1989] IRLR 134
Union officials representing members can picket their members’ place of work. Those working from a number of different locations can lawfully picket any work location or alternatively their work headquarters, as long as they have actually worked from those different locations, although once the law changes (as explained above) there will need to be a “picket supervisor” “readily contactable”, meeting the new requirements of the TUA16.
Merely “occasional ports of call” would not be regarded as the individual’s place of work (Union Traffic v TGWU [1989] IRLR 127). Workers dismissed while on strike have a continuing right to picket lawfully at their former place of work.
Secondary picketing (picketing at a workplace which is not the member’s place of work) is not protected by the immunities. Secondary picketing is unlawful.
The law does not state how many can picket. Often the police try to limit it to six, but they should issue a warning to this effect. This figure comes from the BIS Code of Practice: Picketing, which says: “Pickets and their organisers should ensure that in general the number of pickets does not exceed six at any entrance to, or exit from, a workplace; frequently a smaller number will be appropriate.” Although the Code is only advisory, a 1985 case gave police additional support in attempts to reduce numbers to six:
During the 1984-85 miners’ strike, pickets were posted at a pit in South Wales. Although six pickets stood outside the colliery gates, about 60 demonstrated across the road. The court ruled that the mass demonstration was a common law nuisance.
Thomas v South Wales NUM [1985] IRLR 136
In the 2005 Gate Gourmet dispute, the court granted an injunction to limit pickets outside the company’s offices, but not at other locations:
The High Court granted an injunction limiting the number of pickets outside Gate Gourmet’s Heathrow offices to six and limiting picketing so that the workers could not approach employees going to and from work. However, it refused a request to limit the number of pickets near the entrance to the nearby Gate Gourmet plant at Beacon Hill.
The injunction was made against the union as well as individuals because, although there had been no ballot, union officials were present at the pickets and aware of what was going on, and the union had not repudiated (disowned) the action.
Gate Gourmet London Ltd v TGWU [2005] IRLR 881
The government has confirmed that it will revise and “strengthen” the Code of Practice on Picketing, including advice on “responsible use of social media”, and protests “linked” to industrial disputes (Government response to consultation, November 2015).