Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd

Last updated

Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Decided17 November 2004
Citation(s)[2004] EWCA 1507
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Brooke LJ, Parker LJ and Keene LJ
Keywords
Employment contract

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.

Contents

Facts

The car manufacturer, MG Rover was in trouble. Mrs Kaur's contract said,

Employment with the company is in accordance with and, where appropriate, subject to… collective agreements…

Her work place collective agreement was called 'The Way Ahead Partnership Agreement' signed in 1997, which in 'Job Security 2.1.' said the following.

As with the successful introduction of "Rover Tomorrow-The New Deal', THERE WILL BE NO COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY.

Mrs Kaur was threatened with redundancy in 2003. She claimed an injunction against being dismissed.

Judgment

Keene LJ said that even when there were express words, the question was whether the context and character of the agreement made them apt for incorporation into individual contracts. Therefore, the agreement was not intended to create individual rights.

31. I can accept that The Way Ahead does generally have the character of a bargain, struck between the appellant and the unions, and that what is said in it about compulsory redundancy reflected the statements about more flexible working by the workforce. But that does not get the respondent very far at all. It is what one would expect of a collective agreement, which as both sides accept is an agreement but not something which is in itself normally enforceable at law. At a collective level, various assurances and statements as to the future were undoubtedly made by both the employer and the trade unions. But the fact that paragraph 2.1 was not unilateral but part of such a package tells one nothing about its aptness for incorporation as a term of individual contracts of employment.

32. That issue is one to be resolved by looking at the words relied on in their context. That context contains a number of features, which seem to me to indicate that those words are expressing an aspiration rather than a binding contractual term. First, the preceding sentence in the same paragraph is important. It describes enabling employees who want to work for Rover to stay with Rover as "an objective," something therefore which it is hoped to achieve. But that objective is the very same thing as saying that there will be no compulsory redundancy. It is only if the objective is achieved that there would be no compulsory redundancy. It follows that the character of the crucial second sentence is to be viewed in the light of the first sentence, indicating that this is an objective, rather than a binding promise.

33. Secondly, that is reinforced by the opening words of the second sentence, "as with the successful introduction of 'Rover Tomorrow – The New Deal'," which suggest that the statement about no compulsory redundancy is to be seen as a repeat of the earlier position in The New Deal. Yet, as I have already concluded, the position under The New Deal was one where the statements about employees being able to stay with Rover were not contractual commitments. Thirdly, paragraph 2.3 of The Way Ahead is relevant, as it is the positive counterpart of the statement about no compulsory redundancy. Paragraph 2.3 spells out how future reductions in manpower will be achieved and so, implicitly, how compulsory redundancies can be avoided. It is the other side of the coin to paragraph 2.1. But it states that such reductions "will be achieved in future, with the co-operation of all employees, through natural wastage … (etc)." As Mr Goudie submits, this indicates that avoiding compulsory redundancies is contingent on the co-operation of the workforce as a whole, whatever that may mean. That makes it very difficult to see the reference to "no compulsory redundancy" as an enforceable term in each employee's contract of employment, both because of the vagueness of the language of paragraph 2.3 and because any entitlement would depend on the activities of others in the workforce. I regard paragraph 2.3 as highly relevant when one comes to consider the significance of paragraph 2.1. Seen together, the aspirational nature of the company's statement is plain, as indeed is its collective rather than individual character.

34. I conclude, therefore, that the words relied on by the respondent in paragraph 2.1 of The Way Ahead were not intended to be incorporated into the contracts of employment of individual employees and were not apt for such incorporation. In so far as they formed part of a bargain with the unions, the commitment was solely on a collective basis. For these reasons and, in respect of the cross-appeal, for the reasons given earlier in this judgment, I would allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.

Jonathan Parker LJ and Brooke LJ agreed.

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.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Australian waterfront dispute</span> Event in Australian industrial relations history

    The Australian waterfront dispute of 1998 was an event in Australian industrial relations history, in which the Patrick Corporation undertook a restructuring of their operations for the purpose of dismissing their workforce. The restructuring by Patrick Corporation was later ruled illegal by Australian courts. The dispute involved Patrick Corporation terminating the employment of its workforce and locking out the workers of the workplace after the restructuring had taken place, with many of these workers members of the dominant Maritime Union of Australia. The resulting dismissal and locking out of their unionised workforce was supported and backed by the Australian Liberal/National Coalition Government.

    An Australian workplace agreement (AWA) was a type of formalised individual agreement negotiated between an employer and employee in Australia that existed from 1996 to 2009. Employers could offer a "take it or leave it" AWA as a condition of employment. They were registered by the Employment Advocate and did not require a dispute resolution procedure. These agreements operated only at the federal level. AWAs were individual written agreements concerning terms and conditions of employment between an employer and employee in Australia, under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. An AWA could override employment conditions in state or territory laws except those relating to occupational health and safety, workers' compensation, or training arrangements. An AWA was required to meet only the most minimal Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. Agreements were not required to include effective dispute resolution procedures, and could not include prohibited content. Agreements were for a maximum of five years; approved, promoted and registered by the Workplace Authority; operated to the exclusion of any award; and prohibited industrial action regarding details in the agreement for the life of the agreement. The introduction of AWAs was a very controversial industrial relations issue in Australia.

    The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced TU-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive. The law has been amended in 2014 and 2018, and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.

    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:

    Overtime bans are a type of strike in which workers refuse to engage in overtime work, being any work that falls outside of contracted hours. They do this to leverage their employer into negotiating various working conditions. Often organised in unions, workers may choose this form of industrial action to bargain for a higher rate of pay, better working conditions or to discourage an employer from making redundancies. Unlike a full strike in which employees are usually in breach of their contract, workers engaging in overtime bans are typically well protected. Employers cannot legally withhold normal wages during an overtime ban if employees are not breaching the terms of their employment contracts by refusing to do overtime work. However, the legalities of overtime bans do vary between countries. Overtime bans are effective where "industries and organisations run on such habitually high levels of overtime or goodwill that overtime bans ... can have a significant and immediate impact upon the availability of a good or service". Historically, unions have at times received criticism on ethical grounds for choosing to enact overtime bans. The literature records the occurrence of such bans from the 1800s and there is documentation of their use in four continents.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Rights Act 1996</span> United Kingdom Law

    The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.

    <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.

    European labour law regulates basic transnational standards of employment and partnership at work in the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights. In setting regulatory floors to competition for job-creating investment within the Union, and in promoting a degree of employee consultation in the workplace, European labour law is viewed as a pillar of the "European social model". Despite wide variation in employment protection and related welfare provision between member states, a contrast is typically drawn with conditions in the United States.

    <i>Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom</i>

    Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552 is a United Kingdom labour law and European labour law case concerning discrimination by employers against their workers who join and take action through trade unions. After a long series of appeals through the UK court system, the European Court of Human Rights held that ECHR article 11 protects the fundamental right of people to join a trade union, engage in union related activities and take action as a last resort to protect their interests.

    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>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.

    Alexander and Wall v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd [1991] IRLR 287 is a UK labour law case on when a collective agreement is incorporated into an employment contract.

    <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>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.

    <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.

    <i>Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union</i>

    Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 387 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.

    Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy (2009) C-44/08 is a European labour law case, concerning the information and consultation in the European Union.

    <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