EAT Section 145B of the 1992 Act
1. The two appeals raise three essential issues:
(i) what is the proper interpretation and reach of s.145B of the 1992 Act;
(ii) if the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its construction of the ‘prohibited result’, whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in finding that the Respondent’s sole or main purpose in making the offers was to achieve the prohibited result;
(iii) in relation to remedy, whether on a proper construction of the Respondent’s conduct and/or the legislation the Tribunal was wrong to make two awards of pounds 3,800 each as opposed to a single award of pounds 3,800 to the affected Claimants in this case.
2. The appeals were dismissed. The prohibited result occurs where offers, if accepted, result in new terms agreed directly and not through collective negotiations, whatever else is agreed through collective bargaining. There is no warrant for reading in a requirement that the terms will not in the future or will no longer in the future be determined collectively.
3. The Employment Tribunal made no error of law in interpreting the prohibited result and accordingly, no error in determining the Respondent’s sole or main purpose in making the offers.
4. Nor was there any error of law by the Employment Tribunal in making two awards of pounds 3,800 each to those Claimants who received two unlawful offers.
Judges:
Simler DBE J
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0108 – 17 – 1312
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601927