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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll