EAT REDUNDANCY – Collective consultation and information
The evidence to support a conclusion that a trade union has been recognised by an employer for collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 must be clear. The Employment Judge erred in deciding that the Claimant was so recognised without identifying evidence which supported such a conclusion. Discussion is not negotiation. Also as illustrated by the use of the two different terms in section 178(2)(g), negotiation has a different meaning from consultation. NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd [1978] IRLR 504 applied. Appeal allowed. Case remitted to a different Employment Judge to consider the issues relevant to whether the Claimant has standing to bring a claim under TULR(C)A section 189.
Judges:
Slade J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0305 – 12 – 1203
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 178
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – National Union of Gold, Silver and Allied Trades v Albury Brothers Ltd EAT 1978
The tribunal was asked whether the employer had recognised the Trades Union even though there was nothing formal in place.
Held: Phillips J said: ‘First, the question of recognition is a mixed question of fact and law. Secondly, recognition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471781