Topics

Collective employee relations

New and updated

  • Date:
    1 January 1974
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    JE Broome v Director of Public Prosecutions

    In JE Broome v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] IRLR 26 HL, the House of Lords held that the appellant had no authority or excuse under the Industrial Relations Act, section 134 for willfully obstructing free passage along the highway contrary to the Highways Act, section 121.

  • Date:
    31 December 1972
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2)

    In Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) [1972] 2 All ER 949 CA, the Court of Appeal held that works rules or job descriptions are not of themselves contractual. They are guides as to the way in which work should be performed and should be interpreted in a reasonable way. If interpreted in an unreasonable way in order to disrupt employment this will be breach of contract.

  • Date:
    31 December 1931
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Young v Canadian Northern Railway Company

    In Young v Canadian Northern Railway Company Limited [1931] AC 83 JCPC, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that a collective agreement was not intended to be legally binding between the parties to it. In addition it held that the employee could not claim that those parts of the agreement concerning employee benefits were automatically included in his contract.

  • Date:
    31 December 1909
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Conway v Wade

    In Conway v Wade [1909] AC 506 HL, the House of Lords held that a jury was entitled to find that the conduct of an individual in attempting to induce an employer to dismiss an employee was not conduct in 'contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute' and provided guidance as to the meaning of those words.