-
- Date:
- 1 October 1985
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Ledbury Preserves (1928) Ltd [1985] IRLR 412 EAT, the EAT held that in a potential redundancy situation there must be "sufficient meaningful" consultation before notices of dismissal are sent out.
-
- Date:
- 2 April 1985
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In what was perhaps the most significant of all the cases arising out of the miners' dispute, Thomas & others v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) & others, the High Court grants injunctions restraining picketing of colliery gates in numbers greater than six.
-
- Date:
- 6 December 1983
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Act 1982 narrowed the definition of a trade dispute so that a dispute must now relate wholly or mainly to one of the specified matters. In Mercury Communications Ltd v Scott-Gamer and The Post Office Engineering Union, the Court of Appeal examines documents and letters written on behalf of the union and concludes that the POEU probably could not show that the dispute arose from fear of redundancies rather than from its political objections to the Government's policies.
-
- Date:
- 26 July 1983
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Peaceful picketing at or near a person's own place of work for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, or persuading others not to work, is lawful if it is in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute. However, this does not give the right to contravene byelaws made in pursuance of a power conferred by statute, holds the High Court in British Airports Authority v Ashton and others.
-
- Date:
- 28 June 1983
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Where the terms of a collective agreement are incorporated into employees' contracts of employment, they may be varied from time to time by agreement between the trade unions and the employers, so that the individual contracts are also varied. But, says the Court of Appeal in Robertson and Jackson v British Gas Corporation, if the collective agreement is terminated by the unilateral withdrawal or its terms varied by unilateral action to which the other side does not agree, the individual contracts remain unaffected.
-
- Date:
- 1 January 1980
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In MacShane and Ashton v Express Newspapers Ltd [1980] IRLR 35 HL, the House of Lords held that the Court of Appeal had erred in granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from instructing NUJ members employed on national newspapers to "black" copy from the Press Association.
-
- Date:
- 1 August 1978
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In The Bakers' Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd [1978] IRLR 366 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the EAT had incorrectly set aside the finding by the Industrial Tribunal that the employers' insolvency was not a special circumstance rendering it not reasonably practicable for them to comply with the redundancy consultation provisions of the Employment Protection Act, section 99.
-
- Date:
- 1 April 1978
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Nationwide Haulage Ltd [1978] IRLR 143 IT, the Industrial Tribunal held that the two sets of redundancies were not aggregated since there was no evidence that at the time of making the first set of redundancies there was an intention to follow them shortly with the second set.
-
- Date:
- 1 January 1974
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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
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.