Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Trade unionists win court battle: Personal contract 'sweeteners' illegal

Adam Sage,Legal Affairs Reporter
Friday 30 April 1993 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

TRADE UNIONS scored a notable victory in their fight to maintain collective bargaining yesterday when the Court of Appeal said employers had no right to discriminate against workers who refused to sign personal contracts.

The court backed complaints brought by an employee of the Daily Mail and a docker from Southampton who said they had been unfairly penalised for failing to sign individual contracts derecognising their unions.

Lawyers said the ruling would force companies to 'tread very carefully' if they wanted to follow the increasingly common practice of tearing up collective agreements and negotiating with employees individually.

Firms can still derecognise trade unions and alter the conditions of their workers' contracts, the court said. But Lord Justice Dillon, sitting with Lords Justice Butler-Sloss and Farquharson, said managers were not entitled to offer douceurs to employees who supported derecognition while excluding those who did not.

The judgment, described by trade unionists as hugely significant, came as David Wilson, a sub-editor at the Daily Mail, and Brian Stedman, a bosun with Associated British Ports, appealed against a decision by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which had rejected their complaints.

Mr Wilson, head of the National Union of Journalists' chapel at the Daily Mail, said his employers had acted illegally when they denied him and 12 colleagues a 4.5 per cent pay rise for refusing to sign personal contracts in 1990. Mr Wilson says he has lost pounds 5,000 since then.

In a similar claim, Mr Stedman said he had lost pounds 20 a week by failing to sign an individual agreement in 1991.

Both men said their employers had intended to discriminate against them because they were union members, but this was illegal under the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. The firms were refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, although they can still seek permission to do so from the Law Lords themselves.

John Hendy QC, for Mr Wilson, said later: 'This is one of the most important judicial decisions for trade unionists of the century. It is the first time that companies trying to end bargaining with unions representing their staff have been stopped in their legal tracks.'

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in