This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Case round-up

This report relates to 5 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    Bradford & Bingley plc v McCarthy EAT/0458/09 (0 other reports)

  • expand

    Malone and others v British Airways plc [2010] IRLR 431 HC (2 other reports)

    • Contracts: Agreement on crew numbers not incorporated into employees' contracts

      Date:
      1 June 2010

      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.

    • Malone and others v British Airways plc

      Date:
      15 March 2010

      The High Court has held that provisions regarding minimum crew complements, contained in collective agreements, were not legally incorporated into employees’ contracts of employment, and those employees could not rely on them. In any event an injunction sought by the employees, to restrain British Airways (BA) from crewing planes other than in accordance with that collective agreement, could not possibly be justified.

  • expand disabled

    Miller v Bellway Homes Ltd EAT/0309/09 & EAT/0436/09 (0 other reports)

  • expand

    Rayment v Ministry of Defence [2010] IRLR 768 HC (1 other report)

    • Rayment v Ministry of Defence

      Date:
      10 March 2010

      The High Court has awarded damages for injury and distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

  • expand

    Shanahan Engineering v Unite the Union EAT/0411/09 (3 other reports)

    • Redundancy: Customer request did not justify failure to consult

      Date:
      14 June 2010

      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.

    • Case of the week: Collective redundancy consultation

      Date:
      13 April 2010

      This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers collective redundancy consultation.

    • Shanahan Engineering Ltd v UNITE the Union

      Date:
      15 March 2010

      The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that, even where “special circumstances” existed in a collective redundancy situation, the employer was not totally relieved from its obligations to consult with the affected employees. However, the EAT allowed part of the appeal by remitting the matter of the protective award back to the tribunal.

Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.