The Secretary of State for Education v National Union of Teachers (NUT)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant, the National Union of Teachers ("the NUT"), called for a one-day strike on 15 March 2016 involving several thousand teacher members at 92 sixth form colleges in England. The Plaintiff, the Secretary of State, responsible for education funding under section 14 of the Education Act 2002, sought an urgent interim declaration that the strike was unlawful. The sixth form colleges are autonomous statutory corporate bodies funded through the Education Funding Agency and employ the teachers. The colleges are represented by the Sixth Form Colleges Association ("SFCA") in national pay negotiations with trade unions including the NUT, through the National Joint Council for Staff in Sixth Form Colleges ("the JNC").

In 2015, the Secretary of State indicated no increase in funding for education for 16 to 19-year-olds in 2016, despite calls from the SFCA and unions for increased funding. The NUT sought a 1% pay increase for sixth form college teachers to restore parity with school teachers. Initially, the SFCA was unable to offer any pay increase but later offered a 1% increase from 1 January 2016. The NUT’s General Secretary notified the Secretary of State of a dispute over funding and demanded a substantial increase in funding to improve teachers' pay and conditions, warning of industrial action if the demand was not met.

The NUT proceeded with a ballot for strike action, which resulted in a majority vote in favor of the strike. Meanwhile, an agreement was reached between the NUT and SFCA for a 1% pay increase backdated to 1 September 2015. The Secretary of State brought proceedings under CPR Part 8 seeking an urgent interim declaration that the proposed strike was unlawful. The matter was heard as an application for an urgent interim declaration due to the impossibility of a speedy trial within the required timescale.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should entertain and determine the Secretary of State's application for an interim declaration.
2. Whether the NUT has or may have a statutory defence in tort against the colleges, despite no claim by the colleges being before the court.
3. Whether the court should grant or refuse the Secretary of State's application for an interim declaration that the strike is unlawful.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Secretary of State) Arguments

• The NUT is not engaged in a trade dispute with the colleges but rather with the Secretary of State over funding.
• Agreement on pay increase was reached nationally between the NUT and SFCA, so no dispute exists with the colleges themselves.
• The predominant purpose of the strike is political, aimed at securing increased funding for sixth form colleges generally rather than specifically improving teachers' pay or conditions.
• The Secretary of State cannot dictate how colleges spend their funding, limiting the ability to settle the dispute through statutory powers.
• The NUT’s action is a broad campaign to protect the sixth form college sector, not solely a trade dispute regarding employment terms.
• Granting the interim declaration would unjustifiably infringe on the NUT members’ Article 11 rights but the existing law is likely justified under Article 11(2).

Appellee's (NUT) Arguments

• The dispute is a trade dispute with the colleges as employers, relating wholly or mainly to terms and conditions of employment.
• The union is acting in contemplation or furtherance of an imminent or future trade dispute, which suffices for statutory protection.
• The dispute relates to the Secretary of State’s statutory funding powers under section 14 of the Education Act 2002, which must be exercised to resolve the dispute.
• The predominant purpose of the dispute is to protect teachers’ pay, working conditions, and jobs threatened by funding cuts.
• The funding sought is necessary to avoid detrimental effects on pay, duties, working conditions, and employment stability for members.
• The union remains willing to negotiate with the Secretary of State to resolve the dispute.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first considered whether it should entertain the Secretary of State's application for an interim declaration. Applying the principles from Rolls Royce plc v Unite the Union and related authorities, the court found it appropriate to hear the claim despite the absence of the colleges as parties, given the public interest and statutory responsibility of the Secretary of State. The court rejected the NUT’s argument that the claim was not justiciable due to lack of a tort claim or representation of colleges.

Next, the court examined whether the NUT had a statutory defence under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ("the 1992 Act"). It distinguished between two types of trade disputes: one between workers and their employers (section 244(1)) and one between workers and a Minister of the Crown (section 244(2)). The court found insufficient evidence of a trade dispute between the NUT and the colleges because the colleges and the NUT had reached a national agreement, and the colleges had not opposed the strike.

Conversely, the court found that the dispute between the NUT and the Secretary of State fell within section 244(2) as it related to a statutory power of the Secretary of State to increase funding under section 14 of the Education Act 2002, which was necessary to resolve the dispute. The court acknowledged the NUT’s demand for increased funding was aimed at protecting teachers’ pay, conditions, and jobs, which constituted a trade dispute subject matter.

The court carefully analyzed whether the predominant purpose of the strike was industrial or political. While recognizing the political aspects of the dispute, the court concluded that the predominant purpose was to protect members’ employment terms and conditions by securing funding for the colleges, not a purely political objective.

Regarding the balance of convenience, the court noted the serious disruption the strike would cause to students, parents, and college operations. It considered that damages would not be an adequate remedy and that an interim declaration wrongly granted would likely prevent lawful strike action. The court thus weighed the public interest, the likelihood of success at trial, and the impact on the parties.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Secretary of State's application for an urgent interim declaration that the strike was unlawful.

The direct effect is that the NUT’s strike action scheduled for 15 March 2016 was permitted to proceed without an interim declaration of unlawfulness. The court’s decision does not set new legal precedent but clarifies the application of statutory trade dispute definitions and the court’s discretion in granting interim declarations in industrial disputes involving a Minister of the Crown and trade unions. The ruling underscores the court’s recognition of the complexity of disputes involving public funding and the careful balancing of competing interests including public disruption and union rights.