collective bargaining
-
Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others [2021] UKSC 47
Appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment which overturned the ET and EAT decisions which had ruled in favour of the employees that the direct offers made to them by Kostal contravened section 145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Appeal allowed and the decisions of the ET and EAT were restored.
- cases
01/11/2021 09:55
-
August 2019 Online Update Course
This month's 12 questions are based on 3 Court of Appeal cases.
- resources
27/08/2019 14:58
-
Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1009
Appeal against the EAT’s judgment affirming the Claimants’ claims that offers made to them by the Respondent breached their rights under s 145B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“1992 Act”). Appeal allowed.
- cases
21/06/2019 10:51
-
Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley & Ors UKEAT/0108/17/RN
Appeal against a decision that the Respondent had breached section 145B of TULR(C)A after it had contacted employees individually in an effort to reach agreement about their terms and conditions. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
21/12/2017 12:33
-
Seahorse Maritime Ltd v Nautilus International (A Trade Union) UKEAT/0281/16/LA
Appeal against a ruling that the separate ships on which the employees worked were not separate establishments for the purposes of TULR(C)A and against a ruling that the ET had jurisdiction to consider a claim that there had been a failure to consult about redundancies pursuant to section 188 of TULR(C)A. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
13/07/2017 14:41
-
British Airline Pilots Association v Jet2.Com Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 20
Appeal by the British Airline Pilots Association ("BALPA") against a ruling that the Respondent airline Jet2.com Ltd ("Jet2") was only required to negotiate with BALPA about the pilots' rostering arrangements in certain limited respects conceded by Jet2. Appeal allowed.
- cases
19/01/2017 09:52
-
University of London v Morrissey UKEAT/0285/15/RN
Appeal against a finding of the Central Arbitration Committee (“CAC”) that the University had failed adequately to comply with its obligations under Regulation 14 of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 (“the Regulations”). Appeal dismissed.
- cases
20/03/2016 19:17
