Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
34 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union |
"right to strike" is no more than a slogan or legal metaphor - not been bestowed by statute -immunites - outside of that its the rigour of common law |
|
|
Wedderburn of Charlton |
Rights v Privilege --> tensions between TUs and courts |
|
|
Issues that arise from strikes |
- Inducing breach of contract |
|
|
Inducing breach cases |
Lumley v Gye OBG Ltd v Allen |
|
|
OBG case points on inducing breach |
1. Know of existence of contract (subjective) 2. Element of inducement 3. Intend to be breached (need not be primary aim) 4. Actually breached (not an attempt) |
|
|
OBG on loss by unlawful means |
1. Knowledge of actual or potential commercial relationship between employer and 3rd party 2. D must intend to cause loss to the employer 3. Loss must be causes by the Union using unlawful means "independently actionable" by the 3rd party |
|
|
Intimidation case and points |
Rookes v Barnard (no 1)[1964] 1. Threat must be of the 'or else' kind 2. Must be effective 3. To so something unlawful, independently actionable had it been carried out |
|
|
Examite v Whittaker |
Pull aside any curtain over Ltd companies and see what the real truth is |
|
|
UCL NHS Trust v Unison |
NOT a future employer |
|
|
Objective test for trade dispute |
PBDS (National Carriers) v Filkins [1979] |
|
|
Wholly political dispute cases |
ANG v Flynn (1970) cf. Wandworth LBC v National Associaltion of Schoolmasters / Union of Women teachers [1994] |
|
|
Contemplation / Furtherance is a subjective test - case? |
Express Newspapers Ltd v McShane "honestly thinks it will help one of the parties" |
|
|
National Union of RMT v UK [2014] |
Sought to oveturn the ban on secondary action ... Govts have wide margin of appreciation in regards to this |
|
|
Sim v Rotherham MBC [1987] |
Breach of generalised implied obligation of co-operation |
|
|
SS for Employment v Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (no 2) |
Work to rule was actually a breach of contract ... despite the contractual strangeness |
|
|
Participant in a strike |
Coates v Modern Methods and Materials Ltd [1983] Bolton Roadways v Edwards [1987] Power Packing Case Mako Ltd v Fawst [1983] |
|
|
Principles from Blue Circle Staff Association v Certification Officer [1977] |
7 key factors: - Finance and Other Assistance - Employer Interference - History - Rules - Single company unions - Organisation - Attitude |
|
|
Decision in Blue Circle |
Union was not independent - little more than a sophisticated instrument of personal control Not yet established its independence |
|
|
National Union of Gold, Silver and Allied Trades v Albury Brothers Ltd [1979] |
Express recognition between trade association and union did not imply a recognition Not a mere willingness to discuss, but a positive decision to negotiate |
|
|
Recognition must be for the purposes of collective bargaining... case? |
Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied workers v Sketchley Ltd [1981] |
|
|
Headlines of statutory recognition procedure... |
20+ employees Adjudication - Central Arbitration Committee If rejected- CAC can assess support |
|
|
CAC minimum requirements |
50% support - can grant recognition Ballot of relevant workers: 50% in favour and 40% of those eligible to vote DO NOT compel the company to negotiate in good faith |
|
|
Article 11 ECHR |
Freedom of Association |
|
|
Closed Shop |
Post and Pre |
|
|
Harrison v Kent County Council [1995] |
No rigid distinction between membership and activities "open" to an ET to find someone refused employment because of TU activism was refused mployment because of TU membership |
|
|
Chant v Aquaboats Ltd |
Petitioned about health and safety He was dismissed because of this but the petition was not a union activity |
|
|
"at an appropriate time" |
- Outside working hours - Within working hours with the employer's permission |
|
|
Employer's permission be implied? |
Marley Tile Co Ltd v Shaw |
|
|
Lee v Showmen's Guild of Great Britain |
Expelled for refusing a fine - strict decision of the CA - L had not broken the rules and should not have been disciplined Important limitations imposed by public policy |
|
|
Roebuck v National Union of Mineworkers (Yorkshire Area) (No 2) [1978] |
Scargill was the chairman of the area committee, the disciplinary committee, and appeal committee Real appearance of bias |
|
|
What constitutesdiscipline |
Includes – expulsion, fine, deprivation of benefits or services, any “other detriment” |
|
|
Nalgo v Killorn and Simm [1991] ICR 1 |
Suspension |
|
|
Main expulsion case? |
Aslef |
|
|
Main theorist? |
Ewing |
