UK: Court of Appeal rules that employers can make one-off offer to workers to agree new term where collective bargaining exhausted

It is unlawful for an employer to bypass collective bargaining by making an offer of new terms directly to individual trade union members where the main purpose of the offer is to set a term of employment other than by collective bargaining. The Court of Appeal has overturned the EAT decision in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley (see here) and held that this does not prevent an employer making a one off direct offer to workers to change a contractual term, provided that the employer’s sole or main purpose is not to take the relevant term outside of the scope of collective bargaining on a permanent basis. Leave to appeal is being sought.

Anna Henderson
Anna Henderson
Professional Support Consultant, London
+44 20 7466 2819

Australia: Federal Election Reforms

We’re delighted to have launched our Australian Federal Election Reforms – IR Policy and the 2019 Federal Election hub. Look forward to weekly additions to this site focusing on the practical impacts for business in the face of the upcoming election.

This week, Rohan Doyle considers Enterprise Bargaining – if it’s ‘Broken’, is there a Fix Ahead? 

In case you missed last week’s article, Anthony Longland investigated the ALP Industrial Relations Policy. Discover more by clicking here. Continue reading

Australia: Victorian State Election update: Labor is re-elected for a second term – what does this mean for industrial relations in Victoria over the next four years?

The Victorian state election on Saturday 24 November 2018 was characterised by large swings, with the Liberal party losing several previously safe seats and Premier Daniel Andrews successfully leading the ALP to a clear victory, having significantly increased its majority.

So what will this mean for businesses? Continue reading

Australia: Employers get the good oil on strikes and coercion

In Esso Australia Pty Ltd v The Australian Workers Unions [2017] HCA 54, the High Court of Australia held that:

  • Where a person contravenes an order in relation to an enterprise agreement or matter arising from bargaining, that person remains precluded from taking protected industrial action after the expiry of the contravened order, until the conclusion of the relevant bargaining. This is so, even if the order concerns minor procedural matters and even if the breach is quickly rectified.
  • Where a person takes action with the intent to coerce another person in breach of section 343 or 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), the intent or belief of the person with respect to lawfulness of the action will not be relevant to determining whether the conduct amounts to coercion.

Continue reading