07 March 2025 / Charles Pigott

Issue: 8107 / Categories: Features , Employment , Disciplinary&grievance procedures

A new route for striking workers?

Could a recent ruling plug the gap in remedies for trade union detriment claims? Charles Pigott considers the scope of the Blacklisting Regulations

The Court of Appeal ruling in Morais and others v Ryanair DAC [2025] EWCA Civ 19 has opened a way for striking workers who have been subject to detrimental treatment because of their participation in official industrial action to recover compensation from their employers.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Morais and others v Ryanair DAC [2025] EWCA Civ 19 has revealed a new legal route for trade union detriment claims based on the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/493) (the Blacklisting Regulations).

Since last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer [2024] UKSC 12, it has been clear that workers who have taken part in industrial action are not protected from detriment under s 146, Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA 1992). Separate TULRCA 1992 provisions apply to protect workers who are dismissed for that reason.

Ms Mercer did not

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

A new route for striking workers?

Could a recent ruling plug the gap in remedies for trade union detriment claims? Charles Pigott considers the scope of the Blacklisting Regulations

The Court of Appeal ruling in Morais and others v Ryanair DAC [2025] EWCA Civ 19 has opened a way for striking workers who have been subject to detrimental treatment because of their participation in official industrial action to recover compensation from their employers.

Ms Mercer did not

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

Error message

A new route for striking workers?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven