Collective employee relations
In MSF v Refuge Assurance plc and United Friendly Assurance, the EAT holds that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered when there is an actual "proposal" to dismiss employees.
This week's case roundup, covering unfair dismissal and redundancy procedures laid down in collective agreements.
In Middlesbrough Borough Council v Transport and General Workers' Union and another, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's finding of fact that an employer failed to consult representatives of two trade unions that it recognised, in respect of more than 100 employees whom it was proposing to make redundant within 90 days, about ways of avoiding the dismissals.
The right of employees or their representatives to request information from their employers under the European Works Councils Directive constitutes a "necessary prerequisite" for determining whether a European-scale undertaking exists, rules the European Court of Justice in Betriebsrat der bofrost Josef H Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG v Bofrost Josef H Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG.
An employment tribunal erred in ruling that employees who protested to their employer, by way of petition, against new terms and conditions of employment collectively agreed between the employer and the recognised trade union had not accepted those terms, holds the EAT in London General Transport Services Ltd v Henry and others.
An employer that gave notice to terminate employees' existing contracts of employment, and offered to re-engage them on new terms, had a duty to consult employee representatives before imposing the new terms, holds the EAT in GMB v Man Truck & Bus UK Ltd.
In Scotch Premier Meat Ltd v Burns and others [2000] IRLR 639 EAT, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had not erred in holding that the employers were "proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees" within the meaning of s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, notwithstanding that, as an alternative option, they were considering selling the business as a going concern.
A dispute in relation to an employer's failure to agree with an unidentified future employer of some of its employees that both they and others subsequently employed by the new employer should be guaranteed their existing terms and conditions of employment was not a "trade dispute", holds the Court of Appeal in University College London Hospital NHS Trust v Unison.
In Christian Salvesen Food Services Ltd v Ali and others, the Court of Appeal considers an "annualised hours" contract, deriving from a collective agreement, under which employees were paid a standard wage for a notional 40-hour week, but overtime became payable only after 1,824 hours had been worked in a 12-month period.
An "establishment" for the purposes of the EC Collective Redundancies Directive means the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties, rules the ECJ in Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to collective employee relations.