Collective employee relations

New and updated

• Date:

  1 August 1978

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  The Bakers' Union v Clarks of Hove Ltd

  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

  Transport & General Workers' Union v Nationwide Haulage Ltd

  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

  JE Broome v Director of Public Prosecutions

  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

  Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2)

  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.

• Date:

  31 December 1931

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Young v Canadian Northern Railway Company

  In Young v Canadian Northern Railway Company Limited [1931] AC 83 JCPC, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that a collective agreement was not intended to be legally binding between the parties to it. In addition it held that the employee could not claim that those parts of the agreement concerning employee benefits were automatically included in his contract.

• Date:

  31 December 1909

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Conway v Wade

  In Conway v Wade [1909] AC 506 HL, the House of Lords held that a jury was entitled to find that the conduct of an individual in attempting to induce an employer to dismiss an employee was not conduct in 'contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute' and provided guidance as to the meaning of those words.