header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 December 2024 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8098 / Categories: Features , Employment , Tribunals
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 13 December 2024

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
201000
Did the Supreme Court ask for a can of worms for Christmas? Ian Smith wraps up the year in employment law with some final twists & turns
  • Check-off of union dues; discontinuance by employer.
  • Whether collective agreements can be rectified.
  • Pre-termination negotiations; the meaning of ‘improper behaviour’.

Supreme Court decisions on employment law are not exactly common, but in the October brief (NLJ, 18 October, pp9-10) we saw one on the meaning of a ‘permanent’ contractual provision (Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others [2024] UKSC 28, [2024] All ER (D) 24 (Sep)), and we now have two more. The first concerned attempts by government departments to discontinue union dues check-off arrangements, and the second dealt with whether a collective agreement can be rectified in equity. Interestingly, they both raised issues surrounding one of the oldest rules in our employment law—namely that collective agreements are not legally enforceable. In addition, an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) pronouncement

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll