Facts. The comment of the ILO’s legal experts is included in the international organization’s 2010 report published in late February. It shows that, on October 22, 2008, a BALPA union went to the ILO with an appeal against the British government, blamed for its failure to clarify laws on the right to strike since the Laval (see our dispatch No. 071034) and Viking (see our dispatch No. 071012) case laws. As a reminder, in these two cases, Luxembourg judges placed the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services, guaranteed by the EU Treaty, above the right to strike, in spite of risks of social dumping. In the case brought before the ILO, it seems that BALPA wanted to go on strike after BA announced the opening of a subsidiary in a European country. Yet, BA threatened to press charges against BALPA based on the principle of freedom of establishment guaranteed by the EU, particularly the case laws abovementioned. Since BA threatened to demand ₤100 million per day of strike for the company’s damages, BALPA gave up and, with the support of Unite and of the International Transport Workers’ Federation, brought the case before the ILO.
ary in a European country. Yet, BA threatened to press charges against BALPA based on the principle of freedom of establishment guaranteed by the EU, particularly the case laws abovementioned. Since BA threatened to demand ₤100 million per day of strike for the company’s damages, BALPA gave up and, with the support of Unite and of the International Transport Workers’ Federation, brought the case before the ILO.
“Devastating.” According to the British government, the union’s request isn’t in the
…Do you have information to share with us?