Collective employee relations
Joe Glavina and Emma Slark at Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.
In Amicus v GBS Tooling Ltd (in administration), the EAT holds that, under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, to make a protective award against an employer in respect of breaches of s.188, an employment tribunal is entitled and obliged to assess the seriousness of the breach, taking into account its nature and any mitigating circumstances.
In R (on the application of Ultraframe (UK) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee, the Court of Appeal holds that the role of the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) had been intended by parliament to be a decision-making body in a specialist area not suitable for the intervention of the courts.
In Skiggs v South West Trains Ltd, the EAT holds that the employment tribunal was entitled to hold, on the facts, that an investigative meeting concerning a grievance about an employee who had previously been disciplined was not a disciplinary hearing for the purpose of s.10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999.
In Hardy v Tourism South East, the EAT holds that a proposal to redeploy 26 employees on the closure of a regional office amounted to a plan to dismiss 20 or more employees and fell within s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
In Junk v Kühnel, the ECJ holds that articles 2 to 4 of Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies must be construed as meaning that the event constituting "redundancy" is the declaration by the employer of its intention to terminate the employees' contracts of employment.
In Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that a provision in a collective agreement saying there would be no compulsory redundancies was no more than an aspirational statement and could not be incorporated into individual contracts of employment.
In Howard v (1) Millrise Ltd and another, the EAT holds that the correct interpretation of reg.10 (8A) of TUPE is that, if there is no trade union and no elected employee representatives, the employer is under a duty to inform and consult employees affected by the transfer of the undertaking.
In Griffiths and another v Salisbury District Council [2004] All ER (D) 104 (Feb) CA, the Court of Appeal held that the Implementation Agreement reached as part of the establishment of the new national agreement setting up the National Joint Council for Local Government Services formed part of the contracts of employment of the council's employees. The results of a regrading exercise that was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Implementation Agreement were therefore incorporated into the employees' contracts of employment as legally binding terms.
In South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Graham, the EAT holds that a "local agreement", for the purposes of the National Joint Council for Local Government Employees' collective bargaining agreement, should be construed as meaning either an agreement by all the locally recognised trade unions, or an agreement that has been determined by a process agreed by all the recognised unions.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to collective employee relations.