REDUNDANCY – Collective consultation and information
HUMAN RIGHTS
The Court of Appeal in Redbridge London Borough Council v Dhinsa and McKinnon [2014] ICR 834 held that the Council’s Parks Constables were in service as a ‘member of a constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment’ within the meaning of Employment Rights Act 1996 section 200(2) and so were precluded from pursuing claims for unfair dismissal. In this appeal it was not in issue that applying McKinnon and domestic law, by parity of reasoning trade unions representing such constables are precluded by Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation ) Act 1992 section 280 from pursuing claims for a declaration and a protective award. The Claimant parks constables’ assertion that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights require the Court to apply a different interpretation of ERA section 200(2) enabling them to claim unfair dismissal was not well founded. Their dismissals did not engage Article 8 whether on its own or taken together with Article 14. The claim by the trade union under TULR(C)A section 189 prima facie engaged Article 11. However, in the absence of consideration of Article 11.2 it could not be decided whether the union’s Article 11 rights were infringed. Further, even if they were, TULR(C)A section 280 could not be given the interpretation sought by the Claimant. A declaration of incompatibility was not sought from the EAT nor could it be at this stage as the Secretary of State had not been given notice under CPR Rule 19.4A(1).
Slade DBE J
[2015] UKEAT 0234 – 13 – 1812, [2016] ICR 427
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565096
