Collective Bargaining Agreements and Direct Inducements to Employees

The ability of trade unions to negotiate effectively on their members’ behalf would be greatly diminished if employers were permitted to bypass collective bargaining agreements and offer inducements directly to employees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in a ruling which…

Jul 08, 2022

Pexels kateryna babaieva 2760242 1024x683

The ability of trade unions to negotiate effectively on their members’ behalf would be greatly diminished if employers were permitted to bypass collective bargaining agreements and offer inducements directly to employees. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in a ruling which stands as a warning to employers.

The case concerned sometimes acrimonious pay negotiations between employers on an industrial site and their unionised workforce. A collective bargaining agreement was in place but the employers asserted that an impasse had been reached and that their only option was unilaterally to make a direct pay award to employees.

Two of the employees subsequently launched proceedings under Section 145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That provision, in summary, grants trade union members the right not to have offers made to them which, if accepted, would have the prohibited result that terms of their employment would not be, or no longer be, determined by collective agreement.

The employees’ claims were upheld by an Employment Tribunal (ET) and the employers were ordered to pay each of them £3,830 in compensation. The maximum award available in such cases is currently £4,554.

In rejecting the employers’ challenge to that outcome, the EAT found that they had communicated an offer to employees that engaged Section 145B. Negotiations were not at an end when the offer was made and it was more likely than not that further collective bargaining would have resulted in agreement.

Although the employers had previously engaged in meaningful negotiations with the union, there was ample evidence that the sole or main purpose of the offer was to achieve the result prohibited by Section 145B. The ET made no error of law in ruling the employees’ complaints well-founded.

Employers – Stamp Out Offensively Blokeish Behaviour or Pay the Price

When offensively blokeish behaviour in the workplace enters the realms of sexual harassment it is employers who are likely to carry the financial and reputational can. The point was powerfully made by a case concerning a female firefighter who was humiliated by male colleagues’ sexist comments. The woman claimed that she and three firemen were inside a fire engine, awaiting delivery of a takeaway meal, when the men began making assessments of female passers-by, commenting on whether they would…

HGV Driver’s Resignation Defeats Unfair Dismissal Claim

An HGV driver’s unfair dismissal claim has been rejected after the Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his employment contract had already been brought to an end by his resignation. After he was observed to have veered while eating a sandwich when driving, the driver’s employer advised him of a disciplinary hearing to be held the following week. That weekend he gave a week’s notice of his resignation, as required by his employment contract. He attended the hearing, which took place the day…

Stable Lass Compromised Employment Dispute ‘Under Duress’

Under the auspices of Acas, employment disputes can be formally compromised by way of so-called ‘COT3’ agreements, thus obviating the need for litigation. However, as a guideline ruling showed, such agreements are unlikely to be worth the paper they are written on if they are entered into under duress. The case concerned a stable lass who lived in tied accommodation. When faced with disciplinary proceedings, she entered into a COT3 agreement with her employer. She subsequently lodged Employment…