The curious incident of the UK Supreme Court's decision in <i>Mercer</i>

This article considers the reasoning and importance of the UK Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mercer . Fiona Mercer had disciplinary action taken against her, resulting in her suspension from work but not her dismissal, due to her involvement in industrial action. This largely progressive decision highlights the lack of protection in UK domestic law for workers who have action short of dismissal taken against them in such circumstances, and its failure to protect workers’ convention rights under Article 11. This article considers the reasoning of the case in detail and discusses why each of the appellate courts reached a different decision when applying their duties under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to the facts. It concludes that the HRA offers a lack of protection where there is a lacuna in the law rather than one specific offending provision that can either be interpreted in a convention-compliant manner or declared as incompatible.