‘Birmingham city council has reached an agreement to settle historical equal pay claims that left the authority with liabilities estimated at £760m and pushed it into effective bankruptcy.’
The Guardian, 10th December 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive T/A Nexus [2024] UKSC 37, the Supreme Court has handed down an important judgment on the scope of rectification, holding that a collective bargaining agreement can be rectified even though it is not a legally enforceable contract. Of greater relevance for pensions lawyers is the decision that the Employment Tribunal, whilst it does not have the power to make a rectification order, can nevertheless treat a document as having been rectified on the basis of the principle that “equity can treat as done that which ought to have been done”. This has potentially wide-ranging consequences for other statutory tribunals, including the FTT and the Pensions Ombudsman.’
Pensions Barrister, 14th November 2024
Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com
‘Fire Brigades Union bars former member of governing executive over alleged racist posts.’
The Guardian, 4th November 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Serious Fraud Office is investigating the construction of a hotel and conference centre owned by one of the UK’s biggest trade unions, the BBC can reveal.’
BBC News, 21st October 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The new Employment Rights Bill introduced by the UK government represents one of the most significant single items of employment legislation ever to be published, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th October 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Cleaners at a prestigious London private school have won their battle for improved pay and working conditions, as well as compensation for steep cuts in their hours, scrapping plans for industrial action that was due to have started next week.’
The Guardian, 29th August 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The organisation responsible for regulating teachers in England is being investigated by the Department for Education after allegations of misconduct by staff, and teachers left in distress after lengthy inquiries.’
The Guardian, 3rd August 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Guidance drawn up by Conservative ministers which told civil servants to ignore Strasbourg rulings and remove asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful, the high court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 5th July 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘For at least the last 40 years, law and policy in relation to work in the UK have been rooted in a paradigm of prevention: preventing employers from abusing the power they enjoy over workers in ways that are harmful to the latter’s interests. This article argues that this paradigm is rooted in a partial and structural, understanding of power, that is incapable of grappling with the true scope of the problems associated with power as it relates to work in the context of capitalism. Exposing the issues that exist with this understanding of power, and advancing an alternative structural conceptualisation, the article explores the implications that such an understanding might have for labour law and policy.’
Industrial Law Journal, 13th May 2024
Source: academic.oup.com
‘EJ Richard Wood held that the Airport had breached s.145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by offering pay increases directly to 9 members of Prospect, the trade union recognised by the Airport for collective bargaining purposes. The Tribunal’s judgment provides a helpful application of the interpretation of s. 145B in the Supreme Court’s decision in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and ors [2021] UKSC 47 and the EAT’s decision in Ineos Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones & ors and Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd v Arnott & ors [2022] EAT 82. Under s. 145B employers are prohibited from making offers to employees who are members of a recognised trade union which, if accepted, would have the result that one or more terms of their employment will not, or will no longer, be determined by collective bargaining (the “prohibited result”), if the employer’s sole or main purpose in making the offers is to achieve the prohibited result. Where liability is established, the ET must make a prescribed award (£4,554 at the time the claim was presented) to each member to whom the offer is made.’
Old Square Chambers, 24th April 2024
Source: oldsquare.co.uk
‘The first part of this blog outlined the facts and decision in the Supreme Court case, Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer, as well as the approach the Court took in distinguishing between private sector and public sector employment. The second part of this blog considers the approach of the Supreme Court in distinguishing between the “core” and “essential” in respect of trade union rights. While the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is sometimes a little opaque, these two terms are not interchangeable in RMT. The right to strike is not yet designated as an “essential” trade union freedom, though it is an integral prop to other “essential” rights such as the right to make representations and the right to bargain collectively. In RMT, the distinction between “core” and “accessory” is being used in a different sense, to emphasise gradations of importance within a specific right (“essential” or otherwise). In RMT, for example, the Court was drawing a distinction between primary strike action, which was “core” and deserving of stronger protection, and “secondary” strike action which was “accessory” and therefore amenable to a wider margin of appreciation. The situation in Mercer involved a primary strike, and hence applying RMT it was at the “core” of the right to strike. This conceptual distinction is therefore internal to the right to strike. It is very likely that the right to bargain collectively, essential in Article 11 terms, also has “core” and “accessory” elements to it.’
Oxford Human Right Hub, 10th May 2024
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Individual strikers are protected from dismissal where they are dismissed for participating in “protected” (i.e lawful and official) industrial action, under s. 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). However, there are many ways in which employers can penalise individual strikers other than through dismissal, such as through demotion, suspension, fines, disciplinary warnings, and disproportionate pay deductions. In Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer, the Supreme Court considered if a worker proposing to strike was protected from “detriment” under TULRCA 1992, s. 146. This was because it concerned her participation in the “activities of an independent trade union”. The Supreme Court concluded that strike action was excluded from s.146, principally because it was not “at an appropriate time” [44]-[45]. This meant that there was no statutory protection for the claimant, Ms Mercer, who (on the assumed facts) had been suspended for activities connected to a lawful and official strike. The effect of this was to create a zone of impunity for employers engaged in the selective victimisation of individual strikers.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 10th May 2024
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The union for senior civil servants is launching an unprecedented legal challenge to ministers’ Rwanda plan.’
BBC News, 1st May 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An email sent by Wiltshire Council’s chief executive to union members ahead of a vote on industrial action was unlawful as it sought to deter members from voting in favour of a strike, an Employment Tribunal has found.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th April 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Unions and workers’ rights groups are urging the government to reconsider plans to reintroduce fees for employment tribunals amid fears it will encourage exploitation.’
The Guardian, 26th February 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘UK employers faced with industrial action need to understand the steps that a trade union must take before they can lawfully make a call for industrial action and the timing of those steps.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th February 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In this post, Liz Jackson, Trainee Solicitor, and Max Wiktorsson, Associate, in the Employment Team at CMS, comment on the decision from the Supreme Court in Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v Central Arbitration Committee and Anor. [2023] UKSC 43. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on 25 and 26 April 2023 and judgment was handed down on 21 November 2023.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd January 2024
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Rebecca Denvers identifies the cases which will have a big impact on employment law and HR policies and practices over the next 12 months.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th January 2024
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Ministry of Defence has been reported to the equalities watchdog after claims from female civil servants that it has failed adequately to address allegations of sexual harassment and assault. The union Prospect wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) asking for an investigation into whether the MoD was failing in its public sector equalities duty in relation to discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The EHRC will now have to decide whether to take action.’
The Guardian, 14th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024