It has been arguably the most high-profile legal battle in pharmacy this millennium.

When the Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) Union called for official recognition from Boots back in January 2012, few would have expected the dispute to span almost three years.

The PDA Union started out confidently, claiming there was strong support for it to collectively bargain on employees' terms and conditions. It argued that the current union, the Boots Pharmacists' Association (BPA), just wasn't strong enough to prevent the workforce's rights being "gradually eroded". But there have been strong views on both sides, and the case has since batted back and forth – reaching statutory adjudicators, the High Court and even challenging UK employment law.

On the face of it, the High Court ruling in favour of Boots last month was a blow for the PDA Union. But it is by no means a death knell for their bid. In fact, the judge intimated the union had a good chance of achieving its aims by finding a Boots pharmacist who wanted their representation – a move that could pave the way for derecognition of the BPA.

The PDA has also suggested it will take an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. So far, so confusing. In fact, one C+D reader says the case has "more sequels than Frank Sinatra had final appearance shows in Vegas".

But the complexities of the case should not overshadow the fact that the ruling could have huge implications not only for Boots pharmacists, but also for the pharmacy profession. PDA Union success could set a precedent that could mean multiples would have to recognise unions that are supported by their employees. So what do the main players in the dispute see as the way forward?

The challenger

John Murphy, general secretary, PDA Union

"We were hopeful that we would win at the latest hearing. Very, very hopeful, in fact, and disappointed that we didn't. We believe every pharmacist - every individual – should have the right to collective bargaining on their terms and conditions.

"It's a fundamental human right and nobody should be denied it. I do believe – with a strong, effective, collective negotiating agreement – that Boots pharmacists' terms and conditions could be looked at. We've been clear all the way through that we believe this is something pharmacists ought to at least have the choice of, and they should have the choice of a union prepared to do that.

"If we were to win the right to represent Boots pharmacists, our position wouldn't necessarily be confrontational. It would be in the interests of patients and in the interests of members, and they're the two big issues.

Patients would come first, but we think everything that is in their interest is in the interests of our members. I'm afraid we can never be sure about whether we will eventually win – you just can't tell with the judicial and legal processes.

But we think it's a fight worth fighting, and we've fought Boots every step of the way. Put the boot on the other foot: Boots has decided to defend its actions every step of the way. And you have to ask why."

The representative

John Makepeace, CEO, Boots Pharmacists' Association

"I'm not a lawyer – I don't pretend to understand the finer implications of what could happen with regards to who represents Boots pharmacists. It's something we'll be looking at very closely. But the two parties have spent a long time in court and one of them [Boots] won last month.

"Our relationship with Boots is a long-standing one – it goes back over 40 years. Boots pharmacists do have very good representation through the BPA and I think something that doesn't come out very strongly is the fact that we do disagree with the company on a number of different issues.

"We do it in a very professional way – we do it in a way where we don't shout and scream in the press about it or send out strong statements. We try to negotiate with the company and get things to change. Sometimes we can influence issues, sometimes we can't.

"From everything that I've been told, the members do appreciate the work that we do and want us to continue doing it. It offers them a platform to voice what's really going on in Boots and particularly on professional issues.

I think they find it very attractive because it's broad-based and because we deal with whole aspects of their working life. I'd love to have more pharmacists on board because the more members, the more resources it gives us to do things for them on their behalf."

The legal expert

Andrew Davidson, partner, Hempsons

"The [latest] judgment doesn't really change anything, so the hope that the union had for recognition is dashed for the moment. But that looks likely to change again if they appeal, so the case is likely to continue for at least another six months to a year plus.

"I think the PDA Union may as well go down the route [of calling for the BPA to be derecognised] regardless of what they're doing in terms of an appeal. But I suspect the union's perspective will still be: ‘We've got a bigger issue which we need to take forward.'

"Boots will always look at whether the PDA Union is likely to win that recognition request at some point in the future. If it is likely, it's worth considering a voluntary process rather than a statutory one. I don't see that happening while this litigation is ongoing but, if a pharmacist starts the process for derecognition and the BPA becomes derecognised, that would be the time, I think, that Boots would start to try and come to a voluntary agreement. A statutory process is something everybody wants to avoid because it is so long and drawn-out."

Boots and the PDA … The story so far

January 2012

The PDA Union asks Boots for formal recognition to allow it to represent its pharmacists after claiming the multiple's employees are seeing their employment rights "gradually eroded". Boots tells C+D it is working closely with the union on the issue.

March 2012

The PDA Union meets Boots to discuss its decision not to formally recognise the union, and threatens to take its case to the statutory adjudicator if the two sides cannot reach an agreement. Boots promises to give a final decision within three weeks.

April 2012

PDA Union general secretary John Murphy reveals Boots has stood by its decision not to recognise the union. He says the union will seek independent arbitration on the case from statutory adjudicator the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC).

January 2013

The CAC accepts the PDA Union's application on the condition that at least 10 per cent of Boots pharmacists are members of the union.

February 2013

Boots and the Boots Pharmacists' Association vow to fight the CAC's ruling through a judicial review in the High Court.

January 2014

The CAC rules support is high enough among Boots employees for the PDA Union to proceed. Later that month, the High Court rules Boots has no legal obligation to formally recognise the union, but invites the PDA union to challenge the ruling. The PDA union claims that the decision breaches European human rights legislation.

February 2014

The CAC halts the PDA Union's application for recognition until a final legal decision is made. The PDA Union files a request with the High Court, submitting that UK employment law is a breach of European human rights.

September 2014

The High Court rules that the UK and European laws are compatible, but the judge highlights a potential new avenue for the PDA Union to go down, in the form of pushing for derecognition of the BPA.