Alexander v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No 2)

Last updated

Alexander and Wall v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No 2)
CourtHigh Court
Citation(s)[1991] IRLR 287
Case opinions
Hobhouse J
Keywords
Contract of employment

Alexander and Wall v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No 2) [1991] IRLR 287 is a UK labour law case on when a collective agreement is incorporated into an employment contract.

Contents

Facts

The workplace collective agreement of Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd in paragraph 6.1 worked on a "last in, first out" criteria for redundancy, ‘selection within each skill group will be made on the basis of service within the group’. Paragraph 6.2 said the ‘mutual objective will be to ensure that a balance of skills within the department is preserved…’ Standard Telephones instead made people redundant on the basis of skills needed. Mr Alexander and Ward both had informal contracts of employment. They were older and claiming they should not have been made compulsorily redundant. Because there was no evidence of express incorporation, the court asked whether it could be incorporated through implication.

Judgment

Hobhouse J held that the collective agreement would not be incorporated. He said that whether the collective agreement was incorporated was a matter of construction. Here the agreement designated itself as a ‘procedure’ agreement. ‘It is undoubtedly primarily a policy document applicable to the relationship between the unions and the company. It is also specifically concerned with procedure.’ Another clause referring to redeployment depended on another company division accepting the worker. This was not,

apt to be a term of an existing contract of employment as it involves the choice of the company to make an offer and it is only from the making of that offer and its acceptance that any individual right can subsequently arise....

In this context, where none of the other clauses of the collective agreement are apt to be incorporated into the individual contract of employment, it would require some cogent indication in clause 6 that it was to have a different character…

[Paragraph 6.2 was expressed] ... in policy terms having regard to inter-union relationships’.

[Paragraph 6.1] ... is expressed in terms which are capable of giving rise to individual rights… However, I consider that the wording of paragraph 6.1 is too weak, when considered in the context in which it occurs… Clear and specific express words of incorporation contained in a primary contractual document could displace this conclusion…

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom labour law</span> Labour rights in the UK

    United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.

    An employment contract or contract of employment is a kind of contract used in labour law to attribute rights and responsibilities between parties to a bargain. The contract is between an "employee" and an "employer". It has arisen out of the old master-servant law, used before the 20th century. Employment contracts relies on the concept of authority, in which the employee agrees to accept the authority of the employer and in exchange, the employer agrees to pay the employee a stated wage.

    A severance package is pay and benefits that employees may be entitled to receive when they leave employment at a company unwillfully. In addition to their remaining regular pay, it may include some of the following:

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Relations Act 2000</span> Statute of the Parliament of New Zealand

    The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.

    A collective agreement, collective labour agreement (CLA) or collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a written contract negotiated through collective bargaining for employees by one or more trade unions with the management of a company that regulates the terms and conditions of employees at work. This includes regulating the wages, benefits, and duties of the employees and the duties and responsibilities of the employer or employers and often includes rules for a dispute resolution process.

    Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd (5.7.2000) Appeal No: EAT/1243/99, is a UK labour law case, concerning the TUPE Regulations.

    Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA [2007] IRLR 989 is European Union law case, concerning age discrimination law.

    Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co KG (2006) C-499/04 is a European labour law case concerning the minimum floor of requirements in the European Union for the enforceability of a collective agreement after a transfer of a business.

    An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer.

    <i>McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment</i>

    McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment[1996] EWCA Civ 1166 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an agency worker did have an employment contract for the purpose of claiming for unpaid wages on an employer's insolvency.

    <i>Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher</i>

    Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,

    the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.

    <i>Henry v London Greater Transport Services</i>

    Henry v London Greater Transport Services Ltd[2002] EWCA 488 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an employment contract requires

    <i>Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board</i>

    Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1992] IRLR 469 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that a variation of company workplace customs, which are incorporated into individual contracts of employment can take place after a proper consultation without breaching employees' contracts.

    <i>Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd</i>

    Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd[2004] EWCA Civ 1507 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that promises to make no compulsory redundancies in a collective agreement were "aspirational" and not apt for being incorporated into individual contracts of employment. This meant that, aside from the collective agreement being unenforceable under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 179, the promises to employees could be broken.

    <i>Robertson v British Gas Corp</i>

    Robertson v British Gas Corp [1983] ICR 351 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that by withdrawing a bonus that was fixed by collective agreement, an employer had broken individual employment contracts. The bonus provisions were apt for incorporation into individual contracts and thus required the employees' consent to be withdrawn.

    South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

    <i>Malone v British Airways plc</i>

    Malone v British Airways plc[2010] EWCA 1225 is a UK labour law case, concerning the construction of terms in a contract of employment.

    Wandsworth LBC v D'Silva [1998] IRLR 193 is a UK labour law case, concerning mutual trust and confidence and the limit of power of employers to vary work conditions.

    Independent Workers of Great Britain Union v Central Arbitration Committee [2021] EWCA Civ 952 is a UK labour law case, concerning sham self-employment and the human right to unionise and collectively bargain.

    <i>Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley</i>

    Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley [2021] UKSC 47 is a UK labour law case, concerning the right to suffer no detriment for joining, or inducements to not join, a trade union.

    References