Latest:
Unions sued over Sizewell stoppage
00:00 11 Aug 1994
|
Babcock Construction has launched a High Court action against three
trade unions claiming more than half a million pounds as a result
of a six- day stoppage by 400 workers on the Sizewell B power
station in 1992.
The case may help define when a work stoppage amounts to a strike and when it may be justified on health and safety grounds.
Babcock's writ, issued at the High Court in London, says the operatives refused to work between 9 and 15 June 1992, and that the stoppage lacked ballot support as required by the Employment Act 1984.
The contractor is suing the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the General Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, and the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union for the costs of the strike, which it puts at œ542,373.80.
But Keith Sneddon, national officer with the MSF, has commented: 'We are saying this was not a strike. It was a health and safety issue.
'The men were ready and willing to work provided they were sure there was no health hazard.'
Work at Sizewell was halted because operatives feared that toxic fumes were being given off by an anti-rust agent, known as VPI 350, when pipework was unpacked. Some 600 workers walked off site including 400 employed by Babcock and 200 employed by GEC Alsthom. It was established that the correct unpacking procedures were not followed.
The validity of the health fears remains in dispute.
The unions subsequently went to an Industrial Tribunal seeking payment for the period of the stoppage. This case has yet to be resolved.
Now the Babcock writ accuses the unions of encouraging the strikers, all hourly paid workers, to breach their employment contracts by taking part in the work stoppage.
It alleges that seven named union officials knew of the contracts of employment, and called the strike without any regard as to whether those contracts were broken.
Alternatively the writ claims the strike organisers intentionally interfered with Babcock's business by unlawful means.
No date has yet been fixed for hearing of the action.
The case may help define when a work stoppage amounts to a strike and when it may be justified on health and safety grounds.
Babcock's writ, issued at the High Court in London, says the operatives refused to work between 9 and 15 June 1992, and that the stoppage lacked ballot support as required by the Employment Act 1984.
The contractor is suing the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the General Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, and the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union for the costs of the strike, which it puts at œ542,373.80.
ADVERTISEMENT
But Keith Sneddon, national officer with the MSF, has commented: 'We are saying this was not a strike. It was a health and safety issue.
'The men were ready and willing to work provided they were sure there was no health hazard.'
Work at Sizewell was halted because operatives feared that toxic fumes were being given off by an anti-rust agent, known as VPI 350, when pipework was unpacked. Some 600 workers walked off site including 400 employed by Babcock and 200 employed by GEC Alsthom. It was established that the correct unpacking procedures were not followed.
The validity of the health fears remains in dispute.
The unions subsequently went to an Industrial Tribunal seeking payment for the period of the stoppage. This case has yet to be resolved.
Now the Babcock writ accuses the unions of encouraging the strikers, all hourly paid workers, to breach their employment contracts by taking part in the work stoppage.
It alleges that seven named union officials knew of the contracts of employment, and called the strike without any regard as to whether those contracts were broken.
Alternatively the writ claims the strike organisers intentionally interfered with Babcock's business by unlawful means.
No date has yet been fixed for hearing of the action.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Viewed Articles
ADVERTISEMENT