Inducements to Forego Participation in Trade Union Activities – ET Ruling

Workers have a right not to have offers made to them which have the sole or main purpose of inducing them not to participate in trade union activities. An outsourcing company found that out to its cost after making a trade union activist a tempting offer of a transfer to a new workplace at a…

Mar 10, 2022

The man worked at government-owned premises where the company was contracted to provide cleaning services. He had an active and high-profile role in an independent trade union and had in the past received media attention due to his involvement in promoting strike action. The company vehemently opposed the union’s attempts to achieve recognition as an authorised representative of employees working on the site.

With an employee ballot on the recognition issue looming, the company offered to transfer the man to a new site where he would be better paid. He launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings on the basis that the offer was made for the purpose of inducing him not to take part in trade union activities, contrary to Section 145A(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The company asserted that the sole purpose of the offer was to swiftly find suitable cleaners to work at the new site. It contended that the man was chosen because he had appropriate security clearance and had previously expressed a desire to move to a different location where he would be better remunerated.

In upholding his complaint, however, the ET found on the evidence that the sole or main purpose of the offer was to induce him not to vote in the finely balanced recognition ballot, not to attend pre-ballot meetings and to refrain from seeking to persuade colleagues to vote in favour of recognition.

The ET noted that the timing of the offer coincided very precisely with critical events in the recognition process. A similar offer had been made to another worker who was also vocal in his support for the union. The offer had not been advertised internally as would normally have been the case. The ET gave directions for a further hearing at which remedy issues would be determined.

Discrimination and the Burden of Proof – Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Ever since a crucial alteration was made to the wording of the Equality Act 2010, the question of where the burden of proof lies in employment discrimination cases has been the focus of intense legal debate. An important Supreme Court ruling has, however, resolved the issue once and for all. The case concerned a postman who was born in Nigeria and identified as black African and Nigerian. He had qualifications in computing and wished to obtain a managerial or technical role within Royal Mail.…

Cooling Off Periods and Retraction of Oral Resignations – Guideline Ruling

Large employers often have ‘cooling off’ policies in place which address the common situation of employees orally announcing their resignation in a stressful moment and subsequently having second thoughts. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, such polices, once adopted, must be honoured. The case concerned a supermarket worker who was under strain at home due to her onerous caring responsibilities for sick and elderly relatives. During an understaffed night shift, she became…

Company Directors – You Need to Act to Secure Your Employment Rights

Company directors with imperfect knowledge of employment law all too often fail to confer upon themselves the basic legal protections to which even their most junior members of staff are entitled. In a case on point, a businessman found himself in a very weak position following his removal from the company he co-founded. The man was a 45 per cent shareholder and director of the company, which thrived in its early days, employing about 80 staff and turning over around £1.8 million. As its…