header-logo header-logo

18 July 2019 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7849 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Outside the collective… for now

Charles Pigott shares a close reading of the Court of Appeal’s ruling on defining the limits of collective bargaining

  • The Court of Appeal has given its first ever ruling on the scope of section 145B TULRCA 1992. 
  • It has said that one-off offers, which if accepted would have the effect of by-passing collective bargaining on that occasion, are permitted.

Until now we have had no definitive ruling on the interpretation of a group of sections which were inserted into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA 1992) back in 2004.

Sections 145A to 145F TULRCA 1992 were enacted at least partly in response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 568, which identified a gap in the UK’s trade union laws in relation to Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of association). The gap was the failure to prohibit an employer from offering workers inducements to sign contracts accepting the end of union representation,

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll