The Court of Appeal has held that, where a union serves notice on the employer of intended industrial action, one notice is sufficient for both continuous and discontinuous industrial action.
In Sehmi v Gate Gourmet London Ltd; Sandhu and others v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT/0264/08 & EAT/0265/08, the EAT held that, while the withdrawal by an employee of his or her labour will not necessarily justify dismissal, in a situation where large numbers of employees deliberately absent themselves from work in a manner that is liable to do serious damage to the employer's business, dismissal of those taking part in the action will be reasonable, even where the absence is not prolonged.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that industrial action by a trade union in Sweden to prevent a Latvian company from paying low wages to workers posted from Latvia could not be justified.
The High Court has held that an employer could deduct only 1/260th of salary from employees' pay in respect of a one-day strike, and not 1/228th, which discounted paid holiday.
In R (on the application of Ultraframe (UK) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee, the Court of Appeal holds that the role of the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) had been intended by parliament to be a decision-making body in a specialist area not suitable for the intervention of the courts.