In one case Defendant derecognised the union and offered a pay rise to all who would sign individual agreements and leave the collective one.
In the other case Defendant 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.
Plaintiffs (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.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Labour Law | Economic Restructuring Redundancy+ Transfers Of Undertakings Notes (42 pages) |
Labour Law | Freedom Of Association Notes (13 pages) |
Labour Law | Industrial Action Notes (19 pages) |