- Application by pharmacist union comes after Boots-initiated Judicial Review blocked Central Arbitration Committee’s decision in favour of the union.
- High Court invited application for declaration of incompatibility in its initial ruling.
- Pharmacists’ Defence Association Union (PDAU) in two-year fight for recognition at Boots, with strong support from employees.
- Boots recognises a non-independent association with no bargaining power on working conditions.
- Final decision could deliver broader bargaining rights for all UK workers.
In a move that could substantially strengthen UK employment law, the Pharmacists’ Defence Association Union (PDAU) has today filed a request with the High Court of Justice to declare UK law incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The application is the final stage of a lengthy battle with the iconic chemist chain Boots over its pharmacists’ right to seek representation through an independent union, which many other health care professionals enjoy. The current legal fight arose when the company used a loophole in British law allowing employers to enter agreements with non-independent unions that exclude bargaining over wages and other basic employment conditions.
The High Court’s final decision could lead to broader rights for all UK workers if it rules that British law is incompatible with the obligations of the Convention. In its preliminary decision of 22 January, the Court invited the PDAU to make the request that was filed today. In the event that the Judge grants the application the Crown has 21 days to respond, and Parliament would be under pressure to amend the law to bring it into line with Article 11 of the Convention.
The PDAU has sought recognition from Boots for more than two years, with strong support among its pharmacist employees, who want effective representation to maintain and improve standards in the workplace which impact on patient safety. Boots has fought the independent union at every turn, seeking Judicial Review to block the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) ruling in favour of the PDAU’s bid for recognition.
During the statutory recognition process at the CAC, Boots signed an agreement with a non-independent union, the Boots Pharmacists’ Association (BPA). The CAC concluded that the agreement between Boots and the BPA specifically excluded significant bargaining matters and was designed to block recognition of the independent union, PDAU.
John Murphy, General Secretary of the PDAU, said:
Boots is exploiting a loophole in British law to keep pharmacists from having an independent union that can negotiate their terms and conditions in a critical patient safety role. If justice is done, the court will find that Boots is operating outside agreed standards of collective bargaining, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Our efforts can lay the groundwork for a change in British law that will strengthen all workers’ rights to an independent voice at work.
Mr Murphy added:
Sadly, Boots have sought to engage in a protracted legal struggle rather than listen to the will of the majority of its own pharmacists. A recognition agreement with Boots will enable its pharmacists to have a true collective voice within the most powerful pharmacy multiple in the UK and a body which represents them working with the company to enhance patient care.