In one case D derecognised the union and offered a pay rise to all who would sign individual agreements and leave the collective one. In the other case D offered a pay rise to those who would sign an individual agreement and leave the collective one. In both cases the pay rises were not given to those who refused to sign the new agreement. Ps (employees) sued for breach of (forerunner to) s.146 TULRCA, and claimed damages under s.148. HL denied the claim, saying that the right under s.146 no to be subjected to a detriment did NOT extend to omissions to benefit a worker(here the pay rise), but merely ‘action’ taken against them on the grounds of union activity/membership (NB, at that time, before subsequent amendment, making use of union services was NOT protected under s.146). Secondly, because at that time the statute did not provide for discrimination against a person for making use of union services (Subsequently changed- see above for present state of law), and it was not considered possible to read this in to the statute, the union members were not being discriminated against on the grounds of union membership/activity. Note that now both grounds on which HL based their judgment have been overturned: S.146 includes making use of union services, while ss.145A&B make it unlawful to offer inducements to give up union membership/activity/services, so that it applies to both acts and omissions of employers.