Birmingham bin dispute: Union fails in attempt to take legal action against council

A trade union has failed in its bid to take legal action against the city council over a long-running bin dispute in Birmingham.

Unite the union asked a judge for a temporary High Court injunction to stop Birmingham City Council sending out domestic waste and recycling lorries without an employee of a certain grade on board.

Giving judgment on Thursday (14 February), Judge Jason Coppel QC dismissed the union's application for an interim injunction pending a full trial.

The judge said Unite was "likely to have the better of the arguments" at trial, but granting the injunction would "directly impact" on the council's ability to collect domestic waste and "would make matters worse, at least to some degree".

He added: "This additional harm to the council's ability to perform its statutory functions cannot be compensated in damages."

He found there would be "some delay in engaging external contractors" and the council would also need to seek "additional spending authority".

The judge concluded that granting the injunction would "at least to some degree, even if only temporarily, make a bad situation worse".

In a statement after the ruling, a council spokesman said:

At a hearing on Wednesday, lawyers for Unite told the court that the council was in "continuing, flagrant breach" of a 2017 agreement which ended industrial action over proposed redundancies.

The union's barrister Oliver Segal QC said the council was sending out "mop-up crews" without a "leading hand" - a position since replaced by "waste reduction and collection officers" - in breach of the agreement.

Mr Segal said "the job security of (Unite's) members, as well as their industrial strength, will be hugely damaged if the court effectively sanctions breaches" of the agreement, adding: "The stakes could not be higher."

He said the dispute arose because the council "made significant payments to members of another union, GMB, which it did not make to their colleagues who are members of Unite".

Unite members have been banning overtime and working to rule since the end of December after the union said workers who did not take part in strikes in 2017 had been given extra payments by the authority.

But the council argued that Unite was bringing the case "to further its industrial aims" and says the injunction could have cost it "millions of pounds".

Andrew Burns QC, for the council, accused Unite of "piling hardship, discomfort and risk on the residents of Birmingham" with the injunction, which he said was "intended to put pressure on the council to make it settle the dispute".

He added: "Effectively, the injunction would be putting the health and safety of Birmingham residents at risk."

He said the council is "missing about 40% of waste and recycling collections" as a result of the overtime ban and work to rule.

He also argued there was "no breach (of the agreement) by sending out mop-up crews", which would be "vital if even more waste builds up on the streets" during Unite's planned strikes.

He also said the council had "approved a budget of £350,000 per week to mitigate the effects of the strike".

An expedited four-day trial to determine the "meaning and the enforceability" of the agreement between Unite and the local authority is likely to be heard in May.

The High Court hearing follows talks on Tuesday between Unite and the council aimed at averting the strikes, which the union said "collapsed" within minutes of starting.

Members of Unite are due to strike for two days a week from February 19.