Search results

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

The Employment Act 1980 has repealed Sections 11‐16 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, with the result that statutory union recognition provisions no longer exist in Britain. At the present time there are relatively few people who would mourn the passing of these provisions. From the start many employers were unhappy with what they saw as strongly pro‐union provisions, while the unions became increasingly disenchanged with the lengthy procedural delays in hearing claims, and ACAS itself was unhappy with a number of court rulings that substantially restricted their discretion in hearing and deciding such claims. As a consequence there are likely to be few persons hoping for, much less calling for, the re‐introduction of statutory union recognition provisions, even in a modified form, in the immediate future. Indeed no less an individual than the former Chairman of ACAS himself is on record as saying that:

This monograph considers a further set of state and statutory functions which are connected with collective bargaining and to examine whether or not there effectively existed, or exists, directly and indirectly, encouragement for the promotion of collective bargaining.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

Examines the history of the Commission on Industrial Relations (CIR) 1969‐74 ‐ its origins, organization and policies ‐ and then evaluates its contribution as an agent of reform in the context of the perceived problems of the 1960s and 1970s. Considers whether there are any lessons to be learnt for the future given the possibility of a Labour Government, developments in Europe and the 1995 TUC policy document Your Voice at Work. Despite the drastic changes in industrial relations and in the economic, political and social environment, the answer is in the affirmative. In particular, the importance of a new third‐party agency having an independent governing body like the CIR and not a representative body like the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS); in its workflow not being controlled by government; and in its decisions on recognition being legally enforceable.

This research aims to examine non‐union and union representative arrangements at the Eurotunnel call centre and assesses their effectiveness in representing the needs of employees.

The research examines these issues over a five‐year period using a series of employee surveys, interviews and focus groups. This period has also allowed a review of consultation arrangements before and after union recognition and an examination of the outcomes from such arrangements.

The evidence suggests that the non‐union voice structures at Eurotunnel are used as devices for information and communications rather than true consultation mechanisms or bargaining agents. However, the challenge for the trade union at the Eurotunnel call centre is that what can be regarded as a success in some aspects (increased trade union membership and presence) has not resulted in a change in attitudes towards unions by a majority of Eurotunnel employees. This could be seen as one of the major challenges for union‐employer partnership arrangements.

Generalising the findings of this case to other call centres in non‐union workplaces and firms can be problematic, given the unique ownership and structure of Eurotunnel.

These results would suggest that, while trade unions may provide greater voice than non‐union arrangements, the strength of voice is dependent on the legitimacy and effectiveness of trade unions in representing employees' interests at the workplace. Potentially it could have far‐reaching implications for employers, unions and government policy regarding the structures needed for providing effective consultation and representative structures.

Uniquely, it highlights the potential limitations and dangers for employers and unions in not addressing the needs and expectations of workers in any workplace.

The paper sets out to ask whether the existence of a statutory model of collective bargaining has influenced the scope and depth of bargaining following voluntary trade union recognition.

The paper is largely based on a telephone survey of 101 employer representatives, commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry (2000). The survey was based on a sample of 213 voluntary trade union recognition agreements concluded between 1998 and 2002. The paper also draws on a textual analysis of 213 voluntary recognition agreements and refers to nine in‐depth case studies.

In this paper the research found evidence of dynamic relationships following recognition and in the majority of cases there has been collective bargaining on the core issues of pay, hours and holiday. There was less likely to have been negotiation over the non‐core issues of pensions, equal opportunities and training. There are clear differences between employers' reports of the nature of discussions with the union and what was set out in the written recognition agreements. The fact that a proportion of voluntary agreements have been formally limited to the core issues suggests the influence of the law in shaping both the scope and depth of voluntary recognition (and subsequent practice).

The analysis in this paper is based on employer perceptions of the bargaining process; clearly bargaining also reflects union aspirations. Further case studies based on workplace bargaining would illustrate this dynamic process.

The paper offers the first analysis of bargaining following voluntary recognition and assessment of the impact of the Employment Relations Act 1999.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

Considers issues relating to trade union recognition following a recent Trades Union Congress (TUC) report. Looks at the the UK′s past experience in this field, featuring the work of bodies such as the Commission on Industrial Relations (CIR) and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). Suggests this past experience might shed some light on issues outlined by the TUC report, such as the nature of any future public agency responsible for determining claims for union recognition, its operational criteria and legal sanctions available to it.