When the Weather Turns Against Workers: How Trade Unions Are Winning New Protections

For generations, workplace safety campaigns centred on machinery, chemicals, noise and manual handling. Today, another issue is moving rapidly up the union agenda: extreme weather.

Whether it is bus drivers trapped in overheating cabs, postal workers walking miles in soaring temperatures, or probation staff traveling through floods and storms unions across Britain are increasingly treating severe weather as a workplace safety issue rather than an unavoidable inconvenience.

That shift matters because workers are often the first to experience the consequences of extreme conditions. Long before government agencies issue guidance or employers update policies, drivers, delivery workers, construction workers, teachers, cleaners, caterers and transport staff are dealing with the reality on the ground.

From collective bargaining to industrial action, unions are forcing employers to recognise a simple principle: workers should not have to risk their health simply to do their jobs.

The London Bus Drivers Who Refused to “Sweat It Out”

One of the clearest examples of workers taking collective action over weather-related conditions came in 2026 when around 1,500 Unite members employed by Arriva North London took strike action over excessive temperatures inside bus cabs. Many vehicles were fitted only with air-cooling systems rather than proper air conditioning.

According to Unite, drivers reported cab temperatures reaching 40°C or higher during periods of exceptionally hot weather. The union argued that the conditions increased the risk of fatigue, dehydration, heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

The dispute demonstrated how workplace safety concerns can become industrial relations issues when employers fail to act quickly enough.

After industrial action and negotiations, drivers secured what Unite described as a “groundbreaking” agreement. Arriva committed to fitting air conditioning to buses by May 2027 and accepted a new rule that buses with defective heating or cooling systems would be withdrawn from service after 35 minutes rather than leaving drivers exposed for extended periods.

Unite national lead officer Onay Kasab summed up the significance of the victory:

“This is an excellent win for our members, who stood together on picket lines to fight for and win an agreement that means that drivers are not simply expected to sweat it out.”

The dispute set an important precedent. It showed that workers could move beyond simply reporting unsafe conditions and instead win enforceable protections through collective action. It also shows how union action can benefit the wider community by improving conditions in areas used by all.

From Heatwaves to Snowstorms: The Napo Warning

The concerns extend far beyond transport.

The probation union Napo has argued that severe weather should become a permanent item on health and safety agendas throughout the Probation Service. Members routinely work through heatwaves, flooding, storms, poor air quality, snow and ice while conducting home visits and community appointments.

Napo’s position is notable because it places weather-related risks alongside more traditional occupational health concerns. The union argues that weather conditions can affect not only workers but also vulnerable people under probation supervision.

The union has called for clear national guidance covering issues such as:

  • Dynamic risk assessments during weather alerts.
  • Safe travel arrangements.
  • Postponement of journeys where necessary.
  • Home working and remote appointments.
  • Additional protections for vulnerable staff.
  • Emergency contingency plans.

As Napo put it, “extreme weather” is not simply an environmental concern but “a workplace, health and safety issue.”

Postal Workers Push for Stronger Heat Protections

Communication Workers Union (CWU) members provide another example of how unions are driving workplace change.

Postal workers spend long hours outdoors and are particularly vulnerable during periods of high temperatures. Following severe heat episodes, the CWU negotiated enhanced guidance with Royal Mail covering heat-related risks. The guidance requires formal assessments, consultation with union safety representatives, support for vulnerable workers and adjustments to duties during weather alerts.

The union has consistently argued that heat exposure should be treated like any other workplace hazard.

That approach has increasingly gained traction throughout the labour movement. Rather than accepting weather conditions as unavoidable, unions have argued that employers must identify risks, assess them and take practical steps to reduce them.

The Growing Campaign for Temperature Standards

A wider campaign has also emerged around the absence of legally defined maximum workplace temperatures.

Trade unions have long criticised the fact that UK law requires workplaces to be kept at a “reasonable” temperature but does not establish a clear upper limit.

The Trades Union Congress has responded by organising workplace inspections, producing model agreements and encouraging union health and safety representatives to challenge unsafe conditions. During its workplace heat campaign, more than 1,000 union health and safety representatives participated in inspections aimed at identifying excessive temperature risks.

The movement’s argument is straightforward. Workers in offices, warehouses, kitchens, buses, rail depots, factories and construction sites should have access to clear protections rather than vague assurances.

Industrial Action Over Safety Is Nothing New

The recent focus on weather-related risks fits into a much longer trade union tradition.

Workers have repeatedly used industrial action to address safety concerns when employers failed to respond adequately.

A Return to Core Trade Union Values

There is a tendency to view extreme weather solely through the lens of public policy or environmental debate. Trade unionists tend to see it differently.

The real question is practical.

Can a bus driver work safely inside an overheated cab?

Can a postal worker complete a delivery round during a heat alert without adequate protection?

Can a probation officer travel safely during flooding or severe storms?

Can employers demonstrate they have assessed the risks and taken reasonable steps to reduce them?

Across Britain, unions are increasingly insisting that the answer to those questions must be yes.

The victories won by London bus drivers, the campaigns mounted by postal workers, and the demands from probation staff all point in the same direction. Workers are no longer prepared to accept that severe weather is simply something they must endure.

Instead, they are using the most powerful tools available to them, organisation, collective bargaining and, when necessary, industrial action, to ensure that workplace safety keeps pace with the realities of modern working life.

Because when temperatures soar, storms hit or conditions become dangerous, health and safety cannot be treated as an afterthought. It has to be the first priority.

By Maria Camara

Duffy v House of Gods: Key Insights on Interim Relief for Workers

In late 2025, a hotel worker at Edinburgh’s boutique “House of Gods” found himself out of a job after a chaotic evening shift that ended with the police being called. That much is common ground. What came next is the sort of dispute that goes right to the heart of workplace safety, whistleblowing protection, and the power imbalance workers face when employers move fast and loose.

According to Mr Duffy, the worker at the centre of the case, he had raised a serious safety concern that night: fire escape doors left open, creating a risk to guests, staff, and the building’s security . He said this disclosure – a classic health and safety warning – was the real reason he was dismissed.

The employer told a very different story. They claimed no disclosure was ever made, and that the decision to dismiss had already been taken three days earlier, supposedly for performance reasons while he was still in probation .

When the case first reached the Employment Tribunal, Duffy applied for interim relief – a powerful but rarely granted remedy that can keep a worker on payroll until the full whistleblowing case is heard. The tribunal refused his application . So he appealed.

And that’s where things get interesting.

What the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided

Recorder Fraser Butlin KC allowed the appeal. His reasoning was simple but important: the tribunal had not carried out the required summary assessment of the evidence to decide whether Duffy had a “pretty good chance” of succeeding in his whistleblowing claim .

That phrase – pretty good chance – is the legal test for interim relief. It doesn’t require a full trial. It doesn’t require witnesses to be cross‑examined. It’s a quick, urgent look at the evidence to see whether the worker’s case is strong enough to justify temporary protection.

The tribunal hadn’t done that. It had simply refused the application without engaging properly with the evidence.

Butlin KC stopped short of substituting his own decision. Doing so, he said, would amount to an improper judicial fact‑finding exercise at appeal level. Instead, he sent the case back to the same tribunal to reconsider the interim relief application afresh .

Why this case matters for workers and trade unionists

1. Interim relief is one of the strongest protections workers have – but tribunals often shy away from it

Interim relief is a lifeline. If granted, it forces the employer to keep paying the worker until the final hearing. For someone suddenly dismissed, often without warning, that can be the difference between stability and crisis.

But tribunals rarely grant it. Some judges treat it as an exceptional remedy. Others apply the test too strictly. This case is a reminder that tribunals must actually do the job: look at the evidence, weigh it quickly but properly, and decide whether the worker has a “pretty good chance” of winning.

If they don’t, workers lose one of the few tools that can stop employers from sacking whistleblowers and then dragging out litigation for months or years.

2. Whistleblowing isn’t just about dramatic scandals – it’s often about everyday safety

Fire doors left open. Security risks. Guest and staff safety. These aren’t abstract concerns. They’re the sort of issues workers raise every day, often informally, often under pressure, and often without any protection when employers react badly.

This case shows how quickly a safety disclosure can become entangled with disciplinary action, probation reviews, and employer narratives about “performance”. It’s a familiar pattern to anyone in a union.

3. Employers frequently claim the dismissal decision was made earlier – tribunals must scrutinise that

The employer’s argument that the dismissal was already decided three days before the alleged disclosure is a classic defence. Sometimes it’s true. Sometimes it’s convenient. Interim relief hearings are precisely where tribunals should interrogate that claim.

The EAT’s message is clear: don’t just accept the employer’s timeline – test it.

4. Workers need unions because whistleblowing law is technical, fast‑moving, and stacked against individuals

Interim relief applications must be made within seven days of dismissal. Evidence must be marshalled quickly. The legal test is demanding. And employers often have HR teams and solicitors ready to respond.

Without union support, most workers never even attempt interim relief. Cases like Duffy’s show why unions must be ready to act fast when members raise safety concerns or face sudden dismissal.

The bigger picture

This appeal doesn’t decide whether Duffy was right or wrong. It doesn’t say whether he made a protected disclosure. It doesn’t say whether the employer acted lawfully. What it does say is that workers deserve a fair shot at interim relief when they claim they were sacked for raising safety concerns.

The EAT’s intervention is a quiet but important reminder that whistleblowing protections only work if tribunals apply them properly. For Solidarity members, it’s another example of why collective strength matters. When workers speak up about safety, they should not be punished – and when they are, the law should give them real tools to fight back.

This case reinforces that message. And it sends the tribunal back to do what it should have done the first time: look at the evidence, weigh it fairly, and decide whether a worker raising fire‑safety concerns deserves protection while the truth is sorted out.

By Patrick Harrington

Read the full Judgment in Duffy v BXTR 3 LTD t/a House of Gods: [2026] EAT 119.

This article is intended as a general explanation of the EAT decision in Duffy v. House of Gods. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. The summary is based on publicly available information, including the judgment and reporting from reputable news sources, and is provided for information and comment only. Individual cases turn on their own facts, and anyone affected by issues raised here should seek advice from a qualified legal professional. Solidarity Trade Union accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on this material.

Workers’ Memorial Day: Remembering Lives Lost at Work

Monday 28 April 2025 is Workers’ Memorial Day. It’s the day we remember all those killed, injured, or made ill because of their jobs. We’re asking everyone to wear something red that day. A red ribbon. A red t-shirt. Even a red badge. Whatever works. It’s a small gesture, but it makes a clear point: no one should die just for going to work.

The truth behind the headlines

Workplace deaths aren’t “tragic accidents.” They’re the result of bad decisions. Unsafe buildings. Poor training. Overwork. Stress. Some employers cut corners. Some push people too hard. And some just don’t care. And while they save money, people get hurt. Or worse.


Hundreds of workers in the UK died at work last year. Thousands more became ill or injured. The real number is probably even higher. Stress, anxiety, and depression are now major health risks. Some workers have taken their own lives because of what’s happening at work. This isn’t just sad. It’s a scandal.

Safe work is a basic right

Health and safety isn’t about ticking boxes. It’s about staying alive. It’s about making sure people don’t fall off scaffolding. Don’t collapse from heat and pressure. Don’t break their backs lifting things. Don’t end up burned out or traumatised. And yet we keep hearing the same things: “We haven’t had time to do the checks.” “It’s only a small risk.” “It’ll be fine.” That’s what they always say — until someone ends up in hospital. Or in a body bag.

What we’re calling for

We want action. Not talk. Not sympathy. Real change. That means: The right to say “no” to unsafe work — without losing your job. Better protection for people who speak out. Bosses held to account when workers get hurt. Mental health treated as seriously as physical injuries.Stronger inspections and real penalties for unsafe practices.None of this happens by itself. Workers make it happen. Union reps make it happen. Standing together makes it happen.

Remember and resist

On 28 April, we remember those who didn’t make it home.

We remember the cleaner with no PPE. The delivery driver forced to keep going in a storm. The care worker left alone on a night shift. And we don’t just remember them — we organise. We speak up. We refuse to accept it. So this Workers’ Memorial Day, wear red. Talk to your mates. Raise the issue at work. If it’s not safe, say so. Because the best way to honour the dead — is to protect the living.

By Maria Camara

Understanding Night Work’s Impact on Health

510 words, 3 minutes read time.

Night work remains a cornerstone of the economy, but the toll it takes on workers is often underestimated. Recent TUC research led by Dr. Sian Moore and Dr. Ruth Ballardie brings to light the comprehensive impacts of night shifts on physical health, mental wellbeing, family dynamics, and social lives. For those in Solidarity Union and beyond, understanding these effects is crucial to advocating for fairer treatment and support for our members engaged in night work.

1. Health Risks Linked to Night Shifts

  • Physical Health: Night work disrupts circadian rhythms, leading to risks of cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, and metabolic issues like diabetes. The disruption impacts sleep, contributing to chronic fatigue and raising health risks.
  • Mental Health: There’s a strong link between night work and depression, particularly for female workers. Sleep deprivation and social isolation from family and friends exacerbate mental health struggles, creating cycles that impair overall wellbeing.

2. Psychosocial and Work-Life Impacts

  • Work Intensification: Staff shortages and high demand during night shifts increase work pressures, often leaving night workers feeling isolated, overworked, and unsupported by management. The study shows that limited managerial support, especially during night hours, compounds stress.
  • Family and Social Disruption: Night work often means missing family time, school events, and social gatherings. The research highlights how night shifts lead to fragmented family lives and are linked to increased risks of divorce and strained relationships, especially in households with young children.

3. Financial and Job Security Drivers

  • Many workers take on night shifts primarily for the financial premium it provides. However, some are forced into night work due to limited availability of day positions or labour market conditions, which offer few alternatives. Despite the health trade-offs, financial pressures mean many have little choice but to continue.

4. Union Actions and Employer Responsibilities

  • Shift Premiums: While shift premiums offer some financial compensation, the inconsistency in rates across industries fails to fully account for the physical and mental toll. Union-negotiated improvements in shift flexibility, recovery periods, and health benefits are essential.
  • Worker Control Over Shifts: Allowing workers control over their shifts has proven to reduce negative impacts on family and social life. However, many employers are inflexible, exacerbating strain on night workers.
  • Workplace Safety: With risks of violence and safety hazards higher at night, it is critical that employers establish robust safety measures, particularly for lone workers. The report highlights cases where inadequate support leaves workers vulnerable.

5. Recommendations for Union Advocacy

  • This research underscores the need for Solidarity to push for stronger protections for night workers, including limits on shift lengths, increased recovery time, and access to occupational health services. Union reps should continue to negotiate for fair treatment, safer conditions, and flexibility that respects the unique needs of night workers.

By raising awareness and advocating for policies that address these findings, we can help to mitigate the adverse effects of night work and ensure better support for those who keep society running through the night. This research provides a foundation for action—let’s use it to drive meaningful change for our members.

Download the full report here

By Maria Camara

Union News 31st of July 2024

535 words, 3 minutes read time.

Welcome to Union News, your guide to what’s happening in the UK and trade union movement. Reporting is by Pat Harrington and music is from Tim Bragg. In this weeks edition: Call for Stronger Health and Safety Laws, G4S Job Centre Guards Launch New Strike, Workers Rally to Save Grangemouth Refinery and finally, Mixed Reactions to Junior Doctors’ Pay Deal.

Call for Stronger Health and Safety Laws

Union leaders are pressing the new Labour government to enhance the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) and secure funding for enforcement to cut workplace fatalities. Marking the HSWA’s 50th anniversary, the TUC emphasized the need for continued progress and investment in workplace safety. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak highlighted the Act’s success in saving thousands of lives but warned that recent Tory cuts have put workers at risk. With Britain averaging over 100 work-related deaths annually, Nowak called for fresh funding and collaborative efforts to boost safety measures. Hazards Campaign Chair Janet Newsham echoed the need for more investment, stressing the Act’s importance and advocating for a robust health and safety system .

G4S Job Centre Guards Launch New Strike

Hundreds of G4S security guards at job centres are set for a 10-day strike demanding better pay.

Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union members employed by the private security company as job centre security guards started a week-long strike this Monday.

The union said its members will now walk out alongside colleagues in the GMB union on weeks beginning August 12 and 26.

PCS General Secretary Fran Heathcote criticized G4S for underpaying workers despite their significant profits. G4S claimed PCS lacked a recognition agreement for negotiations, but the GMB union countered, accusing G4S of offering a misleading pay deal that amounts to a real-terms cut. The dispute has seen GMB membership double, with G4S facing investigation for using agency staff to undermine the strike .

Workers Rally to Save Grangemouth Refinery

Scottish workers will gather in Grangemouth this Saturday to fight for the future of the Petroineos oil refinery and its 2,000-strong workforce. The refinery, crucial to Scotland’s economy, faces closure in 2025. Unite’s Keep Grangemouth Working Campaign is pushing for a green transition plan to save jobs. Recent discussions with the government have led to potential funding for low-carbon projects at the site. Unite’s General Secretary Sharon Graham and Scottish Secretary Derek Thomson have noted a positive shift in government attitude, emphasizing the importance of getting the transition right for workers and the community.

and finally, Mixed Reactions to Junior Doctors’ Pay Deal

Rachel Reeves described the proposed pay deal for junior doctors as a minimal cost compared to the losses from NHS strikes. The new offer, which includes a 22.3% pay package, aims to discuss the wage gap but has received mixed reactions. BMA’s junior doctors committee recommends the deal, noting it changes the current trajectory but falls short of full pay restoration. Junior doctors, who have held 44 days of strikes, will vote on the offer, with some expressing dissatisfaction and calling for continued action. The deal includes a backdated pay rise and future increases, but many argue it doesn’t adequately discuss long-term pay issues.

Picture credit
Grangemouth: By User:John, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2459867