6.  The applicant is a trade union based in London with a membership of more than 80,000 persons employed in different sectors of the transport industry in the United Kingdom. 7.  Noting that in the domestic system industrial disputes are governed by very detailed legislative provisions, the applicant union raised two specific limitations on the statutory protection of strike action that it submitted were inconsistent with Article 11 of the Convention, each of the contested limitations being exposed by a separate set of facts. 8.  The relevant set of facts relied on under this head involved the company EDF Energy Powerlink Ltd. (EDF), which was under contract to manage, operate and maintain the electrical power network used by London’s underground transport system. The RMT was one of several trade unions recognised by the company for the purposes of collective bargaining. In all, the company employed some 270 staff at three different sites, the biggest one being that at Tufnell Park with 155 employees. According to the applicant union, there were 52 RMT members there at the relevant time. The company would not have known which of its employees were members of a trade union, as it did not operate a system for deducting union subscriptions from staff wages. 9.  Between June and September 2009, the applicant union and the company held several rounds of negotiation on pay and conditions of service. Dissatisfied with the company’s offer, it decided to embark on industrial action and on 24 September gave the requisite ballot notice to the company (see paragraph 18 below). The notice described the category of workers that would be voting on industrial action as “Engineer/Technician” and stated how many of such were based at each site. The following day the company wrote to the applicant union, stating that it did not recognise the term “Technician” (it categorised its workers in a more precise way: fitters, jointers, test-room inspectors, day testers, shift testers, OLBI fitters). It considered the ballot notice served on it was therefore not compliant with the relevant statutory provisions. The applicant union replied the following week, maintaining that the term it had used was sufficient to allow the company to know which employees were concerned, thereby meeting the purpose of the relevant provisions of law. 10.  Following a further exchange of correspondence between the two sides, the company applied to the High Court for an injunction to restrain the applicant union from calling industrial action on the basis of the ballot. The injunction was granted by Blake J on 23 October 2009. 11.  The judge did not accept the applicant union’s claim that the statutory requirements unduly restricted the exercise of its right to call industrial action, this same argument having been rejected by the Court of Appeal in the case of Metrobus Ltd v. Unite the Union ([2009] EWCA Civ 829). He also rejected the argument that since the procedure was still at an early stage it would be premature to put a stop to it. Instead he considered the risk of unlawful strike action to be sufficiently imminent to justify the injunction. Given the sector involved, the implications of a shutdown would be substantial, with widespread ramifications elsewhere. Addressing the question whether the applicant union had in fact given sufficient indication of the category of staff that would be balloted, the judge found that it had not, since the union’s members at Tufnell Park included persons working at different trades. The applicant union was not under an absolute duty, but instead a duty to do its reasonable best to provide sufficient information to the company. The fact that it used its own system of job classification was relevant but not decisive. Similarly, the fact that a union might not record or possess such information could be a highly material consideration, but not necessarily a decisive one. The applicant union had accepted that it was practicable for a union to supply the necessary information in the context of a small place of employment – it was therefore neither onerous nor unreasonable to require it to do so. Finally, the judge observed that while there was as yet no stated intention on the part of the applicant union to call a strike (the ballot not having taken place), there was a clear nexus between the failure to provide the requisite notice and the employer’s ability to respond to the situation either by making preparations for a work stoppage or seeking to persuade employees not to vote for industrial action. The applicant union’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements was therefore not a mere technical or immaterial breach. 12.  Application for permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 24 November 2009. Renewed application for permission to appeal was refused on 26 January 2010, by which point the industrial dispute between the applicant union and EDF had already been resolved. 13.  Following the granting of the injunction against the strike, the applicant union set about gathering the precise job descriptions of the workers concerned and included these in a fresh notice of a strike ballot, the result of which supported industrial action. This went ahead on dates in December 2009 and early January 2010. EDF made an improved offer on 7 January 2010 which was accepted by the union’s members and took effect as a collective agreement on 1 April of the same year. 14.  The set of facts relied on under this head involved some RMT members who were employed in railway maintenance by Fastline Limited, a company that formed part of a group of companies known as Jarvis plc. Another company in the group, Jarvis Rail Limited, was engaged in rail engineering work. At the time, Fastline and Jarvis Rail Limited (“Jarvis”) employed approximately 1,200 persons in total, 569 of whom were members of the RMT. In August 2007, Fastline transferred part of its undertaking, comprising twenty employees, to another company known as Hydrex Equipment (UK) Ltd (“Hydrex”). These employees’ existing terms and conditions were preserved by Hydrex, as required by law (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006). According to the applicant union, the employees involved were nonetheless concerned for their situation, as Hydrex workers were paid significantly less. It also appeared that trade unions had less influence in that company. 15.  In March 2009 Hydrex’s management informed the ex-Jarvis employees that because of difficult market conditions it intended to reduce the level of their terms and conditions to that of other Hydrex staff. This meant a reduction in salary of some 36-40%, according to the applicant union. In the months that followed, the applicant union made representations to Hydrex on behalf of the employees concerned but without achieving any agreement. When the company indicated that it intended to proceed with its plan, the applicant union organised a strike ballot of the workers concerned (seventeen by that stage). They voted in favour of a strike, which took place between 6 November and 9 November 2009. During the strike, the participants organised pickets at a number of the sites where they normally carried out their work. This caused Hydrex to write to the applicant union to remind it that by law picketing could take place only at or near the employer’s premises and to warn that the union was exposing itself to liability for any economic loss incurred by the company due to this unlawful action (see paragraph 19 below). 16.  A second strike was announced for 18-20 November 2009, but this was postponed when Hydrex indicated its willingness to resume discussions with the applicant union. This led to a revised offer which the union submitted to its Hydrex members, recommending that they accept it. The result of the vote was known on 21 December 2009. Nine votes were cast, all of them rejecting the Hydrex offer. According to the applicant union, its position was extremely weak given the very small number of its members in the Hydrex workforce. These were far too few for their strike action to have any appreciable effect on the company, whose activities had not really been disrupted at all. The applicant union considered that it would have been in a position to defend its members’ interests much more effectively had it been able to mobilise its Jarvis members as well. The simple threat of a strike on this scale, and a fortiori an actual stoppage, would have exerted significantly more pressure on Hydrex to maintain existing terms and conditions. The applicant union stated that Jarvis employees would have been willing to strike in support of their colleagues at Hydrex. Instead, the Hydrex members had had to stand alone, and in the end had no option but to accept the new terms and conditions. They did so under protest. 17.  According to the applicant union, neither Jarvis nor Hydrex exist any longer, having been put into administration in March 2010 and November 2011 respectively. The Hydrex undertaking was purchased by another company, which in turn sold it on in November 2012.