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.

Intelligent and High-Achieving Dyslexic People May Still Be Disabled in Law

Dyslexic people may be both highly intelligent and high-achieving but still be disabled in the legal sense of the word. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in a case concerning a worker whose difficulties were such that she could not recall the last time she managed to finish a book. The woman lodged a disability discrimination complaint against her former employer, a university students’ union. To succeed in her claim, she first had to establish that she was disabled within the meaning…

Employment Judge’s Interventions Gave Rise to Apparent Bias – EAT Ruling

Judges are entitled to robustly manage the cases that come before them, but what they cannot do is give even an impression that they are taking sides. In a case on point, an employment judge’s interventions during a hotly contested hearing were found to have crossed the line into apparent bias. Following a hearing, which was held via video link during the COVID-19 pandemic, the employment judge upheld an office administrator’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. The employer challenged…

Control Room Operator’s Angry Comment Lands Employer in Legal Hot Water

Angry comments uttered in a moment of workplace stress can very easily amount to harassment and land employers in legal hot water. That was certainly so in the case of a frustrated control room operator’s response to a Muslim worker’s reluctance to cover a shift during the Islamic festival of Eid. The operator, who worked for a security company, was under strain due to a staff shortage arising from the festival and was anxious to find a guard to cover a day shift. He contacted the worker, who…