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, as long as that did not have the effect

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll