Malone v British Airways plc

Last updated

Malone v British Airways plc
British Airways tails lined up at LHR Terminal 5B Iwelumo.jpg
Court Court of Appeal
Decided3 November 2010
Citation(s)[2010] EWCA Civ 1225
Transcript(s) BAILII
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Ward LJ, Smith LJ and Jackson LJ
Keywords
Contract of employment, terms

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

Contents

Facts

British Airways plc reduced the number of cabin crew on their planes, above those required by law but below the level stipulated in a collective agreement, subject to a ‘disruption agreement’ requiring crew fly with one less member during disruptions and getting compensation. Section 7.1, entitled, "Minimum Planned Crew Complements" said,

All services will be planned to the current industrially agreed complements for each aircraft type. Future crew complements will continue to take into account in-flight product and cabin crew rest requirements.

Miss Malone’s contract said the collective agreement was incorporated. Malone argued the section was apt for incorporation because it affected the crew’s working conditions.

The Judge, Sir Christopher Holland held that those provisions were not apt for incorporation, and that even if he had found they were, he would not have awarded an injunction to enforce it because the balance of inconvenience weighed heavily against. [1] The crew appealed.

Judgment

Smith LJ, for the Court of Appeal held that the provisions were not aspirational, they were definite undertakings, but not an undertaking to individual employees. If it was individually enforceable, it would be ridiculous because then an individual could bring a flight to a halt by refusing to work under the contract terms. It was only binding in honour.

60. As I have said, I have found this issue difficult. It is not clear from the language whether section 7.1 is intended to be enforceable by an individual employee. In that it is unlike several other subsections which clearly impose duties on an individual employee or obligations on the employer towards individual employees. In my view, examining the context of the agreement as a whole does not help with the construction of section 7.1.

61. I am satisfied that crew complements do impact to some extent upon the working conditions of individual employees and that that is a pointer towards section 7.1 being intended as an individually enforceable term. I also accept that the fact that crew complements have, in the past, been negotiated as part of a productivity deal is another pointer towards enforceability. I accept also that an undertaking as to the size of the team of workers who will undertake a task may, in some circumstances, be enforceable by individuals.

62. Set against that are the disastrous consequences for BA which could ensue if this term were to be individually enforceable. It seems to me that they are so serious as to be unthinkable. By that I mean that if the parties had thought about the issue at the time of negotiation, they would have immediately have said it was not intended that section 7.1 could have the effect of enabling an individual or a small group of cabin crew members to bring a flight to a halt by refusing to work under complement. So, if I apply the rule by which a term of uncertain meaning is to be construed, that of asking what, objectively considered in the light of the factual matrix against which the agreement was made, the parties must be taken to have intended the provision to mean, I am driven to the conclusion that they did not mean this term to be individually enforceable. I accept that there are pointers towards individual enforceability but these are not conclusive. In the end, I think that the true construction of this term is that it was intended as an undertaking by the employer towards its cabin crew employees collectively and was intended partly to protect jobs and partly to protect the crews, collectively, against excessive demands in terms of work and effort. I think that it was intended to be binding only in honour, although it created a danger that, if breached, industrial action would follow.

Ward LJ and Jackson LJ concurred.

Notes

  1. [2010] IRLR 431; [2010] EWHC 302 (QB)

Related Research Articles

British Airways (BA) is the flag carrier airline of the United Kingdom. It is headquartered in London, England, near its main hub at Heathrow Airport.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flight attendant</span> Position in an aircrew

A flight attendant is a member of the aircrew aboard commercial flights, many business jets and some government aircraft. Collectively called cabin crew, flight attendants are primarily responsible for passenger safety and comfort.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flybe (1979–2020)</span> Defunct regional airline of the United Kingdom

Flybe, styled as flybe, was a British airline based in Exeter, England. Until its sale to Connect Airways in 2019, it was the largest independent regional airline in Europe. Flybe once provided more than half of UK domestic flights outside London.

<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">Helios Airways Flight 522</span> Aviation accident in 2005

Helios Airways Flight 522 was a scheduled passenger flight from Larnaca, Cyprus, to Prague, Czech Republic, with a stopover in Athens, Greece. Shortly after take-off on 14 August 2005, air traffic control (ATC) lost contact with the aircraft operating the flight, named Olympia; it eventually crashed near Grammatiko, Greece, killing all 121 passengers and crew on board. It is the deadliest aviation accident in Greek history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Association of Professional Flight Attendants</span>

The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) was founded in 1977 and represents over 28,000 flight attendants at American Airlines. In 2003, APFA played a major role in keeping American Airlines solvent and out of bankruptcy by giving back an employee bailout of $340 million in annual salary and benefits, for a total of over $3 billion. APFA had been in negotiations with American for almost four years when the carrier filed for chapter 11-bankruptcy protection on November 29, 2011.

<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">English contract law</span> Consumption of feces

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Airways Flight 38</span> Aviation incident at London Heathrow Airport on the 17th January 2008

British Airways Flight 38 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Beijing Capital International Airport in Beijing, China, to London Heathrow Airport in London, United Kingdom, an 8,100-kilometre trip. On 17 January 2008, the Boeing 777-200ER aircraft operating the flight crashed just short of the runway while landing at Heathrow. No fatalities occurred; of the 152 people on board, 47 sustained injuries, one serious. It was the first time in the aircraft type's history that a Boeing 777 was declared a hull loss, and subsequently written off.

O'Neill v Phillips[1999] UKHL 24 is a UK company law case on an action for unfair prejudice under s.459 Companies Act 1985. It is the only case thus far in the House of Lords on the provision and it deals with the concept of members of a business having their "legitimate expectations" disappointed.

Intention to create legal relations, otherwise an "intention to be legally bound", is a doctrine used in contract law, particularly English contract law and related common law jurisdictions.

<i>Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd</i>

Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd (2013) C-426/11 is an EU law and UK labour law case concerning whether an employer may agree to incorporate a collective agreement into an individual contract, and if that agreement has a provision for automatic updating of some terms, whether that transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006. The UK Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice the question whether national courts could give a more favourable interpretation to legislation than had been given by German courts.

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.

Collective action in the United Kingdom including the right to strike in UK labour law is the main support for collective bargaining. Although the right to strike has attained the status, since 1906, of a fundamental human right, protected in domestic case law, statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and international law, the rules in statute have generated significant litigation. The "right of workers to engage in a strike or other industrial action" is expressly recognised in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 180, and has been recognised repeatedly by the Court of Appeal as "a fundamental human right"., and the House of Lords.

<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.

<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.

<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