DWP loses another case in the High Court – this time over union subscriptions


One wonders whose benefit payments will support the latest DWP failure at the High Court.

This one can’t even be considered a surprise. The DWP, along with other ministries, had scrapped the “check-off” system for collecting trade union subscriptions – a decision that had been ruled illegal previously, after the Department for Communities and Local Government tried it in 2013.

It seems more money is being spent by the Work and Pensions department in court than at work.

And which of our dwindling number of benefit claimants will Stephen Crabb force to pay the damages for loss of income to the trade unions?

A crackdown by the Department for Work and Pensions against its own employees’ trade unions has been declared unlawful by the High Court.

The DWP had scrapped the “check-off” system for collecting union subscriptions – which previously allowed employees to pay their dues through their salaries without extra bureaucracy.

But the scrapping, described by PCS union general secretary Mark Serwotka as “vindictive”, was ruled unlawful at the High Court on Friday.

Judge Elisabeth Laing said DWP staff had a contractual right to have their subscriptions paid by check-off and it should not have been scrapped without agreement.

The department scrapped check-off a year ago along with HM Revenue and Customs, Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Defence.

In 2013 a similar ruling prevented the Department for Communities and Local Government from ending the system.

At the time of that judgement the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said there was no fiscal case for scrapping the policy and that doing so would not save any money.

Ending check-off has however cost trade unions significant amounts of money in direct debit fees – opening up the possibility that the PCS could be awarded damages for loss of income.

Source: DWP’s crackdown on trade unions ruled unlawful by High Court | UK Politics | News | The Independent


Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


2 thoughts on “DWP loses another case in the High Court – this time over union subscriptions

  1. John kettle

    They are trying to make my sister one of those who will pay.
    She’s 67, had severe learning difficulties from birth, requires 24hr care and supervision, can’t wash or bathe, can’t cook, read, write, count, has no sense of danger, can’t operate any kind of wheelchair, has no concept of money, can only communicate to close family with experience of her, has chronic asthma and agoraphobia and has very limited co-ordination.
    ATOS are demanding to see her at an assessment centre next Monday for her PIP claim. She is having panic attacks and rocking back and forth at the prospect, and she’ll have to be physically dragged in.
    How is making a spectacle of her treating her with dignity and respect?

Comments are closed.