established that the employers' purpose was to deter its employees from joining a union or penalising them from membership. So the legislation here did not protect Wilson or Palmer's activities. Nicholas Underhill QC and Brian Napier acted for Associated Newspapers, and Patrick Elias QC and Nigel Giffin acted for Associated British Ports, while John Hendy QC and Jennifer Eady acted for Mr Wilson and Jeffrey Burke QC and Peter Clark acted for Mr Palmer. European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights held that the effect of UK law was to allow employers to treat employees that were unprepared to renounce the right to consult a union less favourably. The use of financial incentives to induce employees to surrender union rights violated ECHR article 11, since it effectively frustrated the union's ability to strive for protection of its members. Unions have the right to make representations to employers and ultimately take action to protect their interests. Significance Having been found to stand in breach of international labour law standards in general, and ECHR art 11 in particular, the UK government set about consulting on how to amend TULRCA 1992 to comply with the judgment, but with the objective of changing the law no further than absolutely necessary to comply with the ruling. The result was the Employment Relations Act 2004, which changed, in particular, TULRCA 1992 section 146 to stipulate that all "workers" were protected by the provisions on detriment for union membership and activities. See also Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345 Notes References KD Ewing, 'The Implications of Wilson and Palmer' (2003) 32(1) Industrial Law Journal 1–22 E McGaughey, A Casebook on Labour Law (Hart 2018) ch 8, 354 External links ECtHR judgment United Kingdom labour case law Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom Trade union case law 2002 in case law 2002 in British law European Union labour law