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.

There is No Known Level of Safe Exposure to Asbestos – High Court Ruling

Exposure to even very low levels of asbestos can be a source of tragedy many years in the future. The point was made by the case of a retired joiner who succumbed to asbestos-related cancer more than 50 years after he worked for just a few days on the construction of a flagship office building. During the late 1960s, the man worked on construction of an insurance company’s headquarters. The job lasted two weeks at most, but involved handling cement panels which contained asbestos. In 2019 he…

EAT Rejects Unauthorised Deduction from Wages Claim

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected an appeal against the dismissal of an employee’s complaint that unauthorised deductions had been made from his wages because he did not receive an additional day’s pay or a day off in lieu when he worked on bank holidays. The employee’s contract of employment stated that he could be required to work on bank holidays, and that he would be paid at double time for those days and given an alternative day of leave in lieu. When he worked on a bank…

Dismissal for Misconduct Without a Reasonable Investigation is Rarely Fair

Dismissing an employee for misconduct is very unlikely to be viewed as fair if there has been no proper investigation and no consideration of either mitigation or the possibility of a lesser sanction. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of a veteran music teacher who was sacked for refusing to attend a staff meeting. The teacher, who had worked at the relevant school for 24 years, was told by her boss that attendance at the meeting was not optional. When she informed him…