header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 July 2019 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7849 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Outside the collective… for now

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll