The Concept of “Protected Trade Dispute” in the UK Legislation: A (Still and Never-Ending) Fashionable Notion to be Exported to the Continent, Despite “Metrobus” and “British Airways”?!

Although the right to strike is increasingly “populated” by rulings issued by the “international courts” (European Court of Justice; European Court of Human Rights) and doctrinally wielded with passion, particularly in the “Continent”, there might be some reasons to think and affirm that the “Thatcherite” legacy of the immunity from the strike “made in Britain”, enshrined in the relevant 1992 statute and left basically untouched in the ensuing “Blairite” era, is still both valid domestically and viable as a paradigm for legislations across the Channel. It is déjà vu to read among British scholars that the model of the TULR(C)A is too rigid, particularly in looking at some detailed procedures (eg balloting) which are required to be complied with, for the strike to be legitimately acted upon. However, as this legal analysis of a comparative nature manages hopefully to corroborate, an alternate model of industrial action, particularly the Italian sciopero (strike), inspired to a totally different philosophy (loose legislation and therefore ample power conferred on trade unions) and affected by so many legislative inconsistencies, might suggest the opposite, particularly in light of the serious problems of industrial productivity affecting that country. The British entrenched approach to industrial action, if looked at from this perspective and despite some recent judicial blunders (the “Metrobus” case), may well be a “family jewel” not to nonchalantly dismiss as, save for some minor flaws which are emphasised in this work, no one in Britain is keen to jump from the “frying pan” into the “fire”.