Supreme Court delivers Judgment on Collective Bargaining – Littleton Chambers

‘The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others [2021] UKSC 47, an important decision for collective bargaining. It held that the employer (Kostal) was in breach of s. 145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the “1992 Act”) by making offers of a change to the terms and conditions of employment directly to employees and bypassing the procedure for collective bargaining agreed with Unite the Union (“Unite”).’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, October 2021

Source: littletonchambers.com

Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley & Ors [2021] UKSC 47 – Inducements relating to collective bargaining – Old Square Chambers

‘On 27 October 2021 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley & Ors [2021] UKSC 47, allowing the appeal by 57 members of Unite the Union, recognised by Kostal for collective bargaining purposes. This is the first occasion the appeal courts considered the interpretation of section 145B of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which was introduced following the decision of the ECtHR in Wilson/Palmer v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 568. S. 145B gives trade union members the right not to receive offers from their employer which, if accepted, would have the result that one or more terms of their employment will not (or will no longer) be determined by collective bargaining (the “prohibited result”), if (but only if) if the employer’s sole or main purpose in making the offers is to achieve the prohibited result. Where liability is established, the Employment Tribunal (ET) must make a prescribed award (currently £4,341) to each member to whom the offer is made.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 27th October 2021

Source: oldsquare.co.uk

Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers – WLR Daily

Posted November 18th, 2014 in children, collective agreements, EC law, law reports, part-time work by sally

Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers (Case C-476/12) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2332; [2014] WLR (D) 467

‘The principle pro rata temporis applied to the calculation of the amount of a dependent child allowance paid by an employer to a part-time worker pursuant to a collective agreement pursuant to clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work.’

WLR Daily, 5th November 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Boots Management Services Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee – WLR Daily

Regina (Boots Management Services Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee [2014] EWHC 65 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 25

‘The right guaranteed by article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of individuals to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests encompassed the right to engage in collective bargaining relating to the terms and conditions of employment of a particular group of workers.’

WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd – WLR Daily

Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd (Case C-426/11); [2013] WLR (D) 288

“Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC precluded a member state from providing, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking, that dynamic clauses referring to collective agreements negotiated and adopted after the date of transfer were enforceable against the transferee, where that transferee did not have the possibility of participating in the negotiation process of such collective agreements concluded after the date of the transfer.”

WLR Daily, 18th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH – WLR Daily

Posted June 11th, 2012 in age discrimination, airlines, collective agreements, EC law, law reports by sally

Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH (Case C-132/11); [2012] WLR (D) 173

“A provision in a collective agreement applicable to a group of companies within the airline industry which only took into account experience acquired as a cabin crew member from the date of recruitment by a specific airline company for the purposes of grading in the employment categories provided for in that agreement did not constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC.”

WLR Daily, 7th June 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

TUPE and Collective Agreements – 11 KBW

“Terms and conditions of employment are often found, especially in the public sector, not in the individual contracts of employment themselves, but in collective agreements between the employer and trade unions, collective agreements which are expressly incorporated into the individual contracts. If the employer and the unions agree changes in the collective agreement then the individual contracts will automatically be varied accordingly.”

Full story (PDF)

11 KBW, 24th November 2011

Source: www.11kbw.com

Malone and others v British Airways plc – WLR Daily

Posted November 5th, 2010 in airlines, collective agreements, contract of employment, law reports, news by sally

Malone and others v British Airways plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225; [2010] WLR (D) 280

“When considering whether a term in a collective agreement was incorporated into employees’ individual contracts of employment, regard would be had, inter alia, to: (i) whether the provision impacted upon the working conditions of the employees; (ii) whether the provision was in truth a collective matter rather than a personal one; and (iii) what the parties had intended the provision to mean.”

WLR Daily, 4th November 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.