-
- Date:
- 14 June 2010
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Helen Samuel, associate solicitor and Anna Bridges, associate solicitor, at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
-
- Date:
- 1 June 2010
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 30 April 2010
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 13 April 2010
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 10 March 2010
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Type:
- FAQs