If you're ever involved in organising a ballot for industrial action, remember to read the small print. In Willerby Holiday Homes Ltd v Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (IDS Brief 749) UCATT was fined over £130,000 for failing to comply with the statutory requirements for pre-strike ballots.
Who was entitled to vote?
On 13 February 2001, UCATT informed Willerby Holiday Homes that it was going to conduct an industrial ballot of 397 members on 20 February. It wrote again the following day, saying that 457 members would be balloted.
On 15 February the company wrote to the union, saying their pre-ballot notice didn't comply with the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The union checked its membership record again and found that it only had 451 members.
The ballot started as planned on 20 February. On 1 March (with the ballot already in progress) the union faxed the names of its 451 members to the company. Willerbys complained of a number of inconsistencies, and when the union wrote again on 2 March, it agreed that 38 of the names on their list were no longer working for the company.
What was the result?
The ballot closed on 5 March, and the next day the union told the company the result - out of 249 valid votes 203 members voted in favour of industrial action.
It also enclosed a list of the 38 members which it thought had left the company, asking how many were still on the check-off list for paying union dues. The company said at least half of them were still employees.
Did the strike go ahead?
Despite these inconsistencies (which didn't make any difference to the outcome of the ballot), the union told the company on 9 March that its members would be on strike from 19 March.
The company promptly complained that the notice of ballot was invalid. The union amended the result to 158 in favour of strike action, and the strike went ahead.
The company brought a claim for damages, saying there were three defects in the way the union had conducted the ballot.
What did the court decide?
The High Court agreed, saying that the pre-ballot notice didn't comply with the legislation because not only did the union get its numbers wrong, but it served the revised notice with less than seven days to go.
It also said, in response to the union's complaint that the company did not co-operate with it, that there was no obligation on the employer to provide information to the union that it already had.
The Court then dealt with the second complaint - that the ballot wasn't conducted properly because of all the inconsistencies with names. It held that the union could have done more, and the official who had organised the ballot could have easily referred to the lists held at the union's regional office.
The Court also agreed with the company's third complaint - that the strike action notice given by the union on 9 March was defective.
The union's argument - that making it pay for its failure to comply with the legislation was in violation of its members' rights to freedom of association - was rejected.
The union was fined £130,458 - £15,485 for missing delivery dates; £40,000 for the loss of eight working days; £75,000 for loss of production.