Collective employee relations
In Darnton v Bournemouth University [2010] IRLR 294 EAT, the EAT held that the employer's error regarding the deadline for negotiation of an information and consultation agreement did not amount to a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with the information and consultation Regulations. It awarded a penalty of £10,000.
The Court of Appeal has handed down its full judgment overturning an injunction preventing British Airways cabin crew from striking.
In Shanahan Engineering v Unite the Union EAT/0411/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that, in relation to collective redundancy consultation, although a customer's instruction amounted to "special circumstances", absolving the employer of the need to start consultation 30 days in advance of the first redundancy, it did not absolve it of all obligations to consult. However, the tribunal should have taken into account the special circumstances of the case in setting the level of the protective award.
Helen Samuel, associate solicitor and Anna Bridges, associate solicitor, at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
In Malone and others v British Airways plc [2010] IRLR 431 HC, the High Court held that the provisions of a collective agreement purporting to set "minimum" cabin crew numbers for different routes and types of craft were not incorporated into individual employees' contracts of employment. In any event, an injunction would not be granted to restrain the employer from reducing cabin crew numbers below the levels specified, and, even if there had been a breach of contract, any award for damages would be for a nominal amount only.
The Court of Appeal has held that, where a union serves notice on the employer of intended industrial action, one notice is sufficient for both continuous and discontinuous industrial action.
In Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Alemo-Herron and others [2010] EWCA Civ 24 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, where the transfer of an undertaking occurs, and the transferring employees' contracts contain a clause referring to a collective agreement between the transferor and the relevant union, the transferee is not obliged to recognise wage increases agreed by the transferor and the union after the transfer has occurred resulting from negotiations to which the transferee was not a party.
In Unison v Somerset County Council and others EAT/0043/09, the EAT held that the employees "affected by" a TUPE transfer for the purposes of consultation with employee representatives were those who would or might be transferred, those whose job is jeopardised by the proposed transfer, and those with internal job applications pending. The definition did not extend to those who might in the future apply for a vacancy in the part of the undertaking transferred.
Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.
In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union [2009] EWCA Civ 1045 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employer must inform representatives of employees who may be affected by a TUPE transfer of its considered and genuine view as to the legal implications of the proposed transfer. However, reg.13(2)(b) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 does not impose strict liability on the employer as to the accuracy of that information. Therefore the employer will not be in breach if the information that it gives reflects a genuine but mistaken belief as to the legal implications.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to collective employee relations.