In Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer, the Supreme Court held that s.146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A) is incompatible with art.11 as it does not protect workers against detriment for participating in industrial action.
In Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another, the Supreme Court held that Deliveroo riders are not in an employment relationship and fall outside the scope of the trade union rights under art.11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In INEOS Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones and others, the EAT held that the employer had offered an unlawful inducement when it imposed a pay award in circumstances where collective bargaining pay negotiations had not been exhausted.
In Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal held that legislation that provides protection against detriment for trade union activities cannot be interpreted to cover detriment for participation in industrial action.
In Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others, the Supreme Court restored the tribunal's decision and held that the employer had offered unlawful inducements when it made two pay offers directly to Unite members while the collective bargaining process was still continuing.
In Cadent Gas Ltd v Singh, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employee was unfairly dismissed due to his trade union activities and that his manager's hostility towards him could be attributed to the employer.
In Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others, the Court of Appeal held that the employer had not made unlawful inducements when it sent letters to employees asking them to agree a pay deal that had been rejected by their trade union.
In R (on the application of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain) v the Central Arbitration Committee and another, the High Court held that Deliveroo riders are not workers and therefore are not automatically entitled to a collective bargaining arrangement.
In Morris v Metrolink RATP DEV Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that a trade union representative who retained confidential information related to a restructuring exercise was unfairly dismissed.
In Unite the Union v Nailard, the Court of Appeal held that the union was liable for the acts of its lay officials because they were acting as its agents, but that the union was not liable for failures by its employed union officials to prevent discrimination by third-party lay officials.