Getty Images

IWGB

‘Equalising the scales’

Workers at BAE Systems in Lancashire have been cleared to proceed with planned industrial action after the High Court dismissed the company’s last-minute bid to block strikes.

The aerospace giant had sought an injunction against Unite the Union members at its Warton and Samlesbury sites, arguing their planned walkout was unlawful.

However, Mr Justice Soole refused to grant the injunction on Thursday, stating: “Having considered the evidence, the application is dismissed. I will give my reasons later.”

The ruling paves the way for strikes, which the union said were due to begin on Wednesday and continue until 25 November, following the rejection of a 2025 pay offer.

In written submissions, Bruce Carr KC, representing BAE, contended that Unite had invalidated the strike’s lawfulness by instructing members not to train managers in aircraft testing after giving notice to ballot on 24 September.

The barrister added: “It is the claimant’s case that the evidence clearly demonstrates that at that meeting and thereafter, Unite called on its members employed as quality professionals, to take industrial action in the form of refusing to undertake the training of managers employed by the claimant.”

Mr Carr said that in mid-September BAE wanted the training after “a number of absences” and while it was “considering business continuity plans in the event of possible industrial action”.

This training occurred between 22 September and 10 October, after which the quality professionals refused to continue following instructions from the union, Mr Carr said.

These workers breached their duty to BAE because they are “required to act in the best interests of the company to carry out such duties in respect of their appointment as they may reasonably be called upon to undertake”, the barrister added.

Oliver Segal KC, for Unite, said the training was a “request”, not an “instruction” and therefore workers who refused were not in breach of their contract.

He described managers being trained for the testing role as “unprecedented” and that union representatives had asked workers to get the “request” in writing while they seek legal advice.

In written submissions, he said: “The evidence in this case is that the defendant never even suggested, let alone ‘called’ on, its members who are quality professionals to refuse to comply with a management instruction to provide training to management executives.”

Mr Segal said BAE was “ludicrously interpreting” emails between union representatives discussing the training as instructions for union members not to comply.

The barrister also said there was no refusal to train the managers after 10 October and that one of the quality professionals gave a statement saying his team never stopped providing training.

He continued: “The reality is that this application is a last-minute, desperate attempt by the claimant to neuter the industrial action, which is both factually mis-premised and legally misconceived.”

open image in gallery

Mr Carr said on Thursday that BAE is considering an appeal.

A BAE spokesperson said: “We note the ruling by the High Court. We believe we had good grounds for the legal challenge and will consider the court’s judgment.

“We respect the right of employees to engage in industrial action and remain committed to a partnership approach with all our trade union groups.”

The PA news agency understands that less than 70 employees out of 12,000 are involved in the strike action while production lines are continuing to operate.

Speaking after the decision, Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “This unsuccessful attempt by BAE to prevent a lawful strike will have severely damaged the goodwill it has with its workforce.

“BAE is a multibillion-pound company making record profits.

“It now needs to come back to the negotiating table with an acceptable offer for striking workers in its Air division, rather than wasting money on pointless legal threats.

“Otherwise, our members will be taking strike action throughout November in their fight for fair pay.”

Rachel Halliday of Thompsons Solicitors, which represented Unite, added: “This is a clear win for Unite and for workers everywhere.

“The High Court has confirmed that the union acted lawfully at every stage, and that BAE’s attempt to block strike action had no basis.

“Today’s decision will send a strong message to employers that the courts cannot be used to silence workers standing up for fair pay and respect.

“Unite acted responsibly throughout, adhering to all statutory requirements, and this important decision reinforces the union’s members’ right to strike.

“Thompsons is proud to have stood with Unite in defending this principle. Working people have the right to be heard – and to take lawful industrial action when negotiations fail.”

MUMBAI: Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has urged banks to ensure that customers are able to get their work done in branches speaking in the local language. She also called upon banks to tweak HR policies to give weightage to local language proficiency during appraisals. She asked banks to restore the human connect in customer service, insisting that technology must complement—not replace—personal interaction.Language friction between PSU bank staff has come to the fore, particularly in Maharashtra and southern India, especially Karnataka. There was recent outrage after a public sector bank manager in Bengaluru refused to speak Kannada with a customer. The incident prompted condemnation from the chief minister, a transfer of the official, and an apology from the bank. Similar cases have exposed ongoing tensions as staff from other states struggle with local languages, causing communication gaps and customer resentment.In a Q&A session with SBI chairman CS Setty at the bank’s 12th Banking and Economic Conclave, she said the sector must rethink its approach to customer engagement, especially at the branch level. “You cannot say you will do everything digitally and reach customers only online. Person-to-person contact was the strength of Indian banks, even before technology, and it helped you make big strides.” A key part of this human touch, she stressed, is language.Calling it “basic etiquette,” Sitharaman said banks must ensure customers can converse in their own tongue at branches. “Language is an important way to communicate with your customers. Even if they know Hindi or English, it gives a nice touch when you speak their language,” she said. “We Indians go abroad and say a few words in French or Spanish to please people—but in our own country, because of HR policies, staff are posted without knowing the local language. That human touch gets lost.”The finance minister linked customer service to HR policy, asking banks to incentivise linguistic and cultural familiarity. “HR policies must ensure that every staff member posted at a branch understands the customer and speaks the local language. Performance appraisal should also factor in proficiency in the local language,” she said.While acknowledging the gains of digitisation, she cautioned banks against becoming impersonal. “Technology can bring advantages, efficiency, productivity, and profit—but that human touch is what many earlier private banks had before they were nationalised. You don’t have to struggle like the old bankers who travelled to villages, but you still need that connection. Please don’t be carried away only by technology.”Sitharaman also called for restoring accountability in credit assessment, especially for small businesses. “Credit rating of a customer—particularly MSMEs—has to be your own. You should not outsource it,” she said. “Earlier, you knew your customers because the staff posted there understood who was reliable and who was not. That has gone, and it needs to be restored.” She urged banks to simplify paperwork and reduce the burden on borrowers. “Paperwork has to be simple. You cannot keep putting the onus on the borrower to keep proving and providing documents endlessly. If you simplify processes, you will be among the most appreciated institutions.”Bankers said that the language issue largely arose because the response to recruitment drives was not uniform across states. While in some states like Gujarat, young candidates were more inclined towards business, youngsters in Karnataka got more opportunities in private IT sector and preferred these jobs which were non-transferrable. In some northern states however the priority was for government jobs leading to differences in language skills.