This case is the first case in which appeal courts have considered how section 145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 should properly be interpreted.
This case is the first case in which appeal courts have considered how section 145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 should properly be interpreted. The broad purpose of s.145B is to seek to avoid trade union member workers receiving offers made by their employer where, if such offers were accepted, one or more of the workers’ terms of employment would not (or would no longer) be determined by collective agreement (and where the employer’s sole or main purpose was to achieve this result). This is known as “unlawful inducement”.
If an employer is found to have made such an unlawful inducement, a fixed amount of compensation is payable – the current amount of this compensation is £4,341 for each complainant.
Kostal UK Limited entered into a Recognition and Procedural Agreement with Unite in February 2015. The agreement gave sole bargaining rights to Unite – with the agreement being binding in honour only. Pay negotiations were to commence in October of each year, to take effect on 1 January. The procedure was stated to include four stages. The first three stages related to meetings between trade union representatives and management. The final stage allowed for the matter to be referred by joint agreement to ACAS; if the parties did not agree to refer to ACAS, the process was stated to be exhausted.
The first round of pay negotiations took place in October 2015. The offer was put to a ballot of members at the beginning of December but was rejected. The employer wrote to its employees on 10 December 20015, making the same offer directly to them. If they did not accept, the employer stated that the Christmas bonus would not be payable.
By the end of December 2015, stage 4 of the process had been reached and the parties agreed to refer to ACAS. By January, around 90% of the workforce who had received a direct offer had agreed; a further offer was made to the remaining employees on 29 January, making a similar offer (including an amount equivalent to the Christmas bonus). The letter warned that if agreement could not be reached, notice might be served to terminate employment.
On 3 November 2016, a collective agreement was reached for 2015, substantially in line with the offer made by the employer in November 2015, but without the Christmas bonus.
57 claimants brought a claim arguing that their employer had breached s.145B. Their claim was upheld by the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the employer’s appeal. The EAT’s view was that if acceptance of a direct offer to workers meant that at least one term was to be determined by direct agreement (rather than by collective bargaining), then that was sufficient, regardless of whether the result was temporary rather than permanent. The question would then turn to whether the employer’s sole or main purpose in making the offers was to achieve that result.
The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed, finding that s.145B would only be breached if the employer’s purpose was to avoid a particular term or terms from being determined by collective agreement on a permanent basis.
The Supreme Court issued its judgment on 27 October 2021. The Court was unanimous in its findings that s.145B had been breached in this particular case but disagreed over how s.145B should be interpreted.
The majority view was that the EAT’s decision went too far – this would effectively give a recognised union a veto over any direct offers to employees concerning any term of the contract, however minor. Where an employer has negotiated with a union and exhausted the procedure for collective bargaining without reaching agreement, then there would be no justification in preventing or deterring an employer from making a direct offer to its workers.
However, the majority did not agree with the employer’s arguments that the offers made in this case did not require employees to forgo any collective bargaining rights (indefinitely or at all). There would be a contravention of s.145B if an offer was made which, if accepted, would in fact cause arrangements for collective bargaining which have been agreed with the union to be by-passed in whole or in part.
On the proper interpretation of s.145B “an offer would have the prohibited result if its acceptance, together with other workers’ acceptance of offers which the employer also makes to them, would have the result that the workers’ terms of employment, or any of those terms, will not (or will no longer) be determined by collective agreement negotiated by or on behalf of the union when, had such offers not been made, there was a real possibility that the terms in question would have been determined by collective agreement”
Here, as the collective bargaining process was clearly still ongoing at the time the offers were made, there was a contravention of s.145B.
The minority view preferred the reasoning of the EAT – by accepting the offers made to them in this case, the workers’ terms were determined by their direct agreement rather than by the considerably later collective agreement. The minority also did not accept that an employer could necessarily escape liability simply because the collective bargaining process had been exhausted – giving the example of an employer who sought to “thwart” the bargaining process.
The employer did seek to argue that it might be difficult to say with certainty when a collective bargaining process had been exhausted. The Supreme Court majority did not accept this argument – however, part of the reasoning for this was an ability to agree the particular process that will be followed in any collective bargaining arrangements. Employers may therefore wish to review their recognition agreement terms to ensure that a clear process for collective bargaining is included so that all concerned can easily identify when that process has been completed.
A secondary reason was the wording of s.145B(1)(b) itself – which provides that the section will not be contravened unless the employer’s sole or main purpose in making the offers was to achieve the prohibited result. If an employer genuinely believed the collective bargaining process had been exhausted, it could not be said that the purpose of making direct offers was to procure the result that terms will not be determined by collective agreement.
This may not, however, apply where, although collective bargaining processes have been exhausted, an employer is held to have acted in bad faith during the negotiations – an Employment Tribunal is obliged to consider whether an employer did not want to use the arrangements agreed for collective bargaining when considering the employer’s “sole or main purpose” in making the offer.
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Where an employee appeals against their dismissal under a contractual appeal procedure and their appeal is successful, reinstatement to their previous role is automatic and does not require approval or agreement from the employee.
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
A few weeks ago we brought you news that following the Government’s mini-budget it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 would be scrapped from April 2023.
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.
The majority of people do not feel the need to embellish their CV to get that coveted position and move on up the career ladder. Their worthiness and benefit to the hiring organisation are easily demonstrated through the recruitment process – application, psychometric testing, selection day or interview.
In July 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited Judgement in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel relating to the correct calculation of statutory holiday pay for part year workers. This decision has implications for all part year workers on contracts which subsist all year round, whether their hours are normal or irregular.
The Government has announced a change to the categorisation of “small” businesses to reduce the amount of regulatory compliance (or “red tape”) required. Currently, SMEs (those with fewer than 250 employees) are exempt from certain regulations – such as the obligation to comply with gender pay reporting. With effect from 3 October, these exemptions will be widened to apply to businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
In University of Dundee v Chakraborty, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether a first draft of a grievance report could retrospectively be deemed to be privileged.
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
The Government has published the Retained EU Revocation and Reform Bill which, if passed, provides for the revocation of all “EU-derived subordinate legislation” (i.e. UK statutory instruments which were introduced to implement EU law) and retained direct EU legislation on 31 December 2023, unless legislation is specifically introduced to save them.
On 20 July 2022, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited judgment in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal. For those of you familiar with this case, you will know that it concerns the statutory leave requirements for part-time and part-year workers. For schools and academies whose workforce consists of a variety of types of part-time and part-year workers, this case is one that must be understood before any changes are applied. Come and join Emma Hughes, Head of HR Services as she puts questions to Ian Deakin, Employment Partner, and Sarah Linden, Senior Associate.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s recent decision in the case of Mr Michael Cowie & Others v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service provides a useful insight into favourable - or unfavourable - treatment in the context of discrimination claims.
This month, HM Treasury issued a consultation on Administrative Control Process for Public Sector Exits with draft guidance. They’re proposing to introduce an expanded approvals process for employee exits and special severance payments, and additional reporting requirements. If approved, the proposals will impact public sector bodies and those that do not have a specific right to make exit payments.
In Wierowska v HC-One Oval Limited, the Employment Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant’s beliefs in relation to Covid-19 vaccines amounted to religious beliefs for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
As of 21 July, two separate pieces of legislation came into force which seeks to mitigate against strike action. It should come as no surprise that this is a direct response to the rail strikes, which have dominated the news in the last couple of months.
The Government has referred to the greater “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Uber BV and others v Aslam and others, considering it appropriate to allow the impact of this decision to take effect, before considering further intervention.
The Supreme Court has now issued its long-awaited judgment in the case of Harpur Trust v Brazel, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The new sponsored Global Mobility route aims to meet the needs of overseas businesses with no previous trading presence in the UK to expand into the UK by providing a specific immigration route for senior employees to come here to set up a UK subsidiary or branch.
