European Court of Human Rights delivers judgement in case concerning freedom of association

On 17 December 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgement on a case concerning freedom of association. The ECtHR unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR declared the complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention inadmissible.

.

In the case, the applicant, who worked as a postal worker, had refused to give induction training on two days because of a ban placed on inductions in the sector by the trade union. The applicant had been sent home after she had refused to give induction training and her wages for the rest of the day had been withheld. In the case, the District Court had ordered the employer to pay the applicant wages for the time she had been prevented from working and compensation based on the Non-Discrimination Act. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision in other respects except for the amount of wages. The Supreme Court overturned the judgement of the Court of Appeal (by three votes to two) and dismissed the applicant’s claim.

In her appeal to the ECtHR, the applicant invoked Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention, complaining that her freedom of association and trade union rights had been violated. The applicant also complained that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her trade union membership.

As regards Article 11 of the Convention, the ECtHR held that the dispute concerned an interpretation of the rights and obligations of the parties to a labour contract in the context of a specific type of selective industrial action. The ECtHR found that the Supreme Court had specifically addressed whether various work tasks had been separable and explained the fact that it made  a difference  to the employer whether  the tasks were carried out together or not. The ECtHR held that the reasoning of the Supreme Court do not have any appearance of arbitrariness or manifest unreasonablesness. By referring the legislation and practice and the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the ECtHR also found that trade union freedom in general has been secured. The ECtHR found that the domestic authorities had remained within their margin of appreciation and stricken a fair balance between the applicant’s rights and the employer’s right to manage work. The ECtHR did not discern any grounds for it to substitute the views for  those of the Supreme Court in this case.

As regards Article 14 of the Convention, the ECtHR referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the applicant was in the same position as any other employee who did not carry out their work in accordance with their employment contract for reasons that fell within their own control. The ECtHR therefore concluded that there was no violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 11 and that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded in that regard.

Read the judgement in the HUDOC database