Collective employee relations
In Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and another, the Supreme Court held that Deliveroo riders are not in an employment relationship and fall outside the scope of the trade union rights under art.11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Cases on appeal provides news on key case law developments that are expected.
In INEOS Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones and others, the EAT held that the employer had offered an unlawful inducement when it imposed a pay award in circumstances where collective bargaining pay negotiations had not been exhausted.
In Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal held that legislation that provides protection against detriment for trade union activities cannot be interpreted to cover detriment for participation in industrial action.
In Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others, the Supreme Court restored the tribunal's decision and held that the employer had offered unlawful inducements when it made two pay offers directly to Unite members while the collective bargaining process was still continuing.
In Cadent Gas Ltd v Singh, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employee was unfairly dismissed due to his trade union activities and that his manager's hostility towards him could be attributed to the employer.
In Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others, the Court of Appeal held that the employer had not made unlawful inducements when it sent letters to employees asking them to agree a pay deal that had been rejected by their trade union.
In R (on the application of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain) v the Central Arbitration Committee and another, the High Court held that Deliveroo riders are not workers and therefore are not automatically entitled to a collective bargaining arrangement.
In Morris v Metrolink RATP DEV Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that a trade union representative who retained confidential information related to a restructuring exercise was unfairly dismissed.
In Unite the Union v Nailard, the Court of Appeal held that the union was liable for the acts of its lay officials because they were acting as its agents, but that the union was not liable for failures by its employed union officials to prevent discrimination by third-party lay officials.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to collective employee relations.
XpertHR® is part of the LexisNexis® Risk Solutions portfolio of brands.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.
Copyright © 2023 LexisNexis Risk Solutions
© 2023 LexisNexis Risk Solutions.