Free employment advice - TULRCA Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992


Human Rights Legislation Fails To Protect Unions Against TULRCA - Employers must be informed promply of strike ballot results METROBUS LIMITED v UNITE [2009] EWCA Civ 829

www.workrep.co.uk - providing free legal information, advice and representation to workers
Helping You Self-Help About Links Contact Site Info HOME

In Metrobus v Unite the union had been authorised by 90% of the membership to carry out strike action. The company applied for an injunction and received it when the High Court judge found that there were 'fatal defects' in the notice given to the company regarding the ballot, strike notices and of the failure of UNITE to inform Metrobus promptly enough of the strike ballot's result.

The Court of Appeal described the ballot provisions as "detailed and legalistic" commenting further that this was "an illustration of how a union, notwithstanding the best of intentions, can fall foul of them."

Nevertheless the Court of Appeal has decided that:

The TULRCA (Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992) legislation demands that a union must act to inform the employer "as soon as is reasonably practicable" after the holding of the ballot (section 231A.

Regarding ballot and strike notices if union members are covered in part by 'check off' arrangements the union must provide the employer with sufficient information to so as to allow the employer to readily deduce numbers, types and workplaces of 'non-check off' employees. Lists and numbers along with details of the 'check-off' employees must be given to the employer.

Unite had argued that Article 11 of the ECHR had been breached as restrictions imposed by TULRCA 1992 presented obstacles so numerous and so complex that errors become became inevitable. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument.

The transcript of this case can be found (usually at the Bailli or Employment Appeals websites) Here
Other recent cases:- 2009 There is a right to legal representation at internal disciplinary hearings under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 789 unofficial industrial action can justify a fair conduct dismissal (not protected by EU and Human Rights law)- SANDHU v GATE GOURMET LONDON LTD - UKEAT 0264/08/RN Sham contracts apart, clear and unambiguous contract clauses are determined in accordance with their terms Archer-Hoblin v MacGettigan - [2009] UKEAT 0037_09 Equal value claims under section 1 Equal Pay Act 1970 during job evaluation scheme implementation will not be automatically successful - Hovell v St Peters NHS Trust - CA 2009 A failure to consider adjustments under the DDA 1995 meant that the dismissal was discriminatory - Fareham College v Walters – EAT 2009 House of Lords overturns previous court rulings as to when a disability is 'likely' to recur – threshold now lower - SCA Packaging Limited v Boyle [2009] UKHL 37 An ongoing difficulty in doing everyday activities (independantly of when this occurs)indicates the existence of disability - Chief Constable of Dumfries & Galloway v Adams [2009] UKEAT 0046_08_0304 An employment tribunal needs to first identify loss suffered by the employee at the time of dismissal before estimating compensation Saunders v OCS Group Ltd [2009] UKEAT 0051_09_2805 Major EAT boost to TUPE service provision change protections – A “common sense and pragmatic approach is required” - Metropolitan Resources v Cambridge EAT 2009 Former employee sued (Unsuccessfully)for fudging medical history - Cheltenham BC v Christine Laird – High Court QBD – 2009 Constructively dismissed can claim notice pay without needing to offset against income from new job - Peters Ltd v Bell EAT [2009] Redundancy was a sham in response to protected disclosures - El-Megrisi v Azad University - UKEAT - [2009] When deciding compensation the ET was entitled to speculate on the future losses of the claimant. - Islam Channel Ltd v Ridley [2009] UKEAT - [2009] Apprentice was discriminated against when his employers ignored experience gained prior to 18 years of age - Hutter v Technische Universität Graz - Case C-88/08 3rd Div ECJ 2009 - [2009] Non-payment of a tribunal award was basis of claim for post decision victimisation claim - Rank Nemo Ltd & Ors v Coutinho - [2009] EWCA Civ 454 With reinstatement orders, the claimant's behaviour must be taken into account by the ET - Central & NW London NHS Trust v Abimbola - EAT 2009 Post decision vexatious behaviour lost the claimant his compensation - Aryeetey v Tuntum Housing Association [2009] EAT Workers may claim for unpaid holiday not only under regulations 13,14 and 16 of the Working Time Regulations (WTR) but also as unauthorised deductions of pay - - HMRC v Stringer and others - HoL 2009 'Illogical' to only award costs for counsel but not solicitor after warning to respondent about 'hopeless' strikeout attempt - HARROGATE NHS TRUST v MOCKFORD - EAT 2009 Constructive unfair dismissal claim valid even where only some of the claimant's complaints in grievance - Parsons v Burworth Estates - EAT 2009 Pyrric Victories - half of workers fail to receive their employment tribunal awards Not Awarding Costs Over False Allegations Was 'Perverse' - > Daleside Nursing Home v Mathew - EAT 2009 Constructive Dismissal:- 1) An Employer's Breach Of Contract Can Be Repaired 2) 'Reasonable Range' Rule Does Not Apply - Buckland v Bournemouth University - EAT 2009 Redundancy - Length of service may be taken into account - ROLLS-ROYCE PLC v UNITE UNION - CA 2009 Tribunals Have Discretion Regarding Time Extensions For Originating Applications (ET1) - Carter v London Underground Limited EAT 2009 Blacklisting of Workers To Be Outlawed Disability and avoidance of adjustments at interview - Limits of employer's 'ignorance' plea defined - EAT 2009 - Eastern v Grey - EAT 2009 The Court of Appeal's unreasonable affinity for the 'Range of Reasonable Responses' London Ambulance v Small [2009] Employment tribunals will first consider whether the case is in time. - Farr v Ryefell Ltd - EAT - [2009] Starting off on the wrong foot - those little details - Chowles v West - EAT 2008 Absence of dismissal warning in Step 1 email was automatically unfair Zimmer v Brezan - EAT 2008 Council fails in GMF defence to equal pay claims - COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL v NICHOLLS - EAT 2009 Novacold Overuled, Malcolm Confirmed; Comparator test in discrimination cases Is now higher - Stockton Council v Aylott Forcible Retirement - National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England v. Secretary of State for Business (Heyday) - ECJ Case C-388/07 2009 The tribunal must not elaborate when answering questions put by the EAT (Burns-Barke procedure) - WOODHOUSE SCHOOL v WEBSTER - [2009] EWCA Civ 91 Sham Contracts - Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi - CA 2009 EAT Guidance For Harassment Cases - RICHMOND v DHALIWAL 2009 Dismissal for proselytising not unfair or discriminatory - Chondol v LCC - EAT 2009 When does the clock start ticking in a disability discrimination case? - Matuszowicz v Kingston CC - CA 2009 Collective agreements negotiated after a transfer still bind the transferee - Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Ltd EAT 2009 Agency workers are to receive the same pay and conditions as permanent staff	2008 A punch that caused injury was closely enough connected with the employment to make the employer vicariously liable for tortious assault. - Gravil v Carroll [2008] EWCA Civ 689 Tribunals should “give reasons which are candid, intelligible, transparent and coherent” - CLARK v CLARK CONSTRUCTION - 2008 Fair Employment Initiative - much government spin; some substance. ECJ Recognises Carer's Right To Claim 'Discrimination By Association' - Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law - ECJ - Case C-303/06 Employment tribunals may award compensation only for damages resulting from an unfair dismissal, not an employer's prior conduct Robins Ltd v Triggs [2008] EWCA Civ 17 Intimidation Results In Strikeout - Force One Utilities v Hatfield Constructive Dismissal - Absence Of Intent but Contract Still Undermined - Parsons v Bristol St Motors - EAT 2008 When Your Employer Changes Your Contract Robinson v Tescom Corporation – EAT 2008 Homophobic bullying provisions don't protect heterosexuals - ENGLISH v THOMAS SANDERSON BLINDS – EAT 2008 Re-Engagement Orders should specify into which job the Claimant will be re-engaged - Home Office v Khan & King - EAT 2008 The existence of a contract is a question of fact to be decided upon by the employment tribunal James v Greenwhich Borough Council - CA 2008 Expired Disciplinary Warnings May Be Taken Into Account Airbus V Webb - CA 2008 Internal Appeal Ending On Last Day Did Not Prevent 3 Month Extension Ashcroft v Haberdashers - EAT 2008 A Protective Award Is Subject To Mitigation, But Starts At 90 days Evans & Ors v. Permacell Finesse Ltd - EAT 2008 Tupe Applies Outside The UK Metal Industries v GMB - EAT 2008 2007 Equal Pay Does Not Necessarily Mean Being Paid The Same CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST MIDLANDS POLICE v BLACKBURN & MANLEY Creative Law or 'How To Wrongfoot Your Employee' part II (TUPE) NEW ISG LIMITED v VERNON - [2007] EWHC 2665 (Ch) The implied term of mutual trust and confidence RDF Media Group v Clements - QBD [2007] EWHC 2892 (QB) Sleight Of Hand Given Thumbs Down By Employment Appeals Tribunal ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND v BEVAN - EAT 2007 TUPE Rights Implementing Council Directive 2001/23/EC cannot be waived REGENT SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED v POWER - CA [2007] EWCA Civ 1188 Disabled Park Worker Wins Record Compensation Tupe Safeguards Existing Rights - Doesn't Confer New Ones JACKSON v COMPUTERSHARE INVESTOR SERVICES PLC - CA [2007] EWCA Civ 1065 Inflexible Grievance Procedures Can Break Mutual Trust And Confidence GMB v BROWN - EAT [2007] UKEAT 0621_06_1610 Lawyer Loses Age Discrimination Case - Ramifications For Workers - Bloxham v Freshfields - ET 2007 Agency Workers Out In The Cold Again - Wood Engineering v Robertson - EAT 2007 Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) Removes Employee Contract Illegality Bar In Unfair Dismissal Cases - PAYNE v ENFIELD TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD and GRACE v BF COMPONENTS LTD - EAT 2007 - Employment Tribunal Applications Down The EAT Has made its first award against an employer for a failure to inform and consult - Amicus Trade Union v Macmillan publishers ltd - EAT 2007 Policeman With Minor Dyslexia Is Considered Disabled Under The DDA - Patterson v Commisioner of Police - EAT 207 No Reversed Burden of Proof For Victimisation In Race Cases - Oyarce v Cheshire County Council - EAT 2007 No Recourse To Mangold For Over 65's Unfairly Dismissed Before October 1 2006 - Briden v Worthing College - EAT 2007 Payments In Lieu Of Notice - Morrish v NTL - Court of Session [2007] CSIH 56 Statutory Dispute Regulations Being Repealed
Do you have a problem at work? Are you being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work or have you been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed? If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem we will try to help. For further information click here
WorkRep is based in the the North West region of the UK and represents mainly in the areas served by the Manchester employment tribunal and the Liverpool employment tribunal. We advise claimants throughout the country however and resources permitting are prepared to represent employment tribunal claimants throughout England and Wales.
Lawyers routinely use the threat of costs to intimidate workers into giving up their employment tribunal claims at an early stage. Some lawyers use this tactic indiscriminately against claimants with success. For further information regarding resisting costs actions in employment tribunals or if you have any employment problem click here
Agency Compensation Contract Costs Discipline Discrimination Age Discrimination Disability Discrimination Race Discrimination Religion and Belief Discrimination Sex Discrimination Sexual Orientation Discrimination Employer Liability Equal Pay Harassment Hearing Negotiation Pay Procedure Redundancy Tupe Unfair Dismissal Union Victimisation Whistleblowing
Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only. Please read the site info before using this website © 2009 Workrep

www.workrep.co.uk - providing free legal information, advice and representation to workers