The new thresholds will apply to all contracts let and procurements that begin after 1 January 2020.
What can an employer do when its negotiations with a recognised union break down, and they cannot collectively agree on changes to terms?
Where there is a breakdown in negotiations with a recognised union over collectively agreed terms, what many employers would look to do would be to seek to negotiate and agree on changes in the terms directly with its workforce. In the case of Kostal UK Limited v Dunkley and Others, the EAT considered whether a direct approach was an unlawful inducement with the result that a workers terms of employment, or any of those terms, will no longer be determined by collective agreement.
Kostal UK Limited had agreed that annual formal negotiations on pay would take place with is recognised union and that they would negotiate any changes in pay with the union. Kostal was proposing a 2% increase in basic pay and 2% of basic pay to be paid in a lump sum as a bonus, amongst other changes. In return, they were seeking a reduction in sick pay, changes to overtime arrangements and break arrangements.
The unions balloted their members on the proposed changes, resulting in a rejection of the new package of terms (only 21% voting in favour). Kostal then indicated it would write to all employees individually to offer the same package and stated that a failure to agree would lead to no Christmas bonus and no pay increase for the year. Employees were urged to agree on the changes within a limited period. Kostal argued that the reason it would make the direct approach was that it wanted the staff to have the opportunity to receive a Christmas bonus. The union alleged Kostal was seeking to induce staff to opt out of collective bargaining. Whilst a collective agreement was eventually reached, a large number of the employees brought claims in the Employment Tribunal alleging that their rights not to be induced out of collective bargaining rights had been infringed. The claims were successful in the Employment Tribunal, and that led to mandatory awards of £3,800 per employee.
Kostal argued that they were only prohibited from making an offer that would take future negotiations out of the collective agreement altogether. The employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal who accepted the reasoning of the Employment Tribunal and found that even temporary changes that did not remove all collective bargaining for the future were barred. They felt the purpose of the legislation was to seek to prevent an employer going over the heads of the union with direct officers offers to workers.
This case appears to make it difficult for an employer to agree terms where negotiations with a recognised trade union have broken down. The EAT was clear in saying that where an employer has a “proper purpose” for making offers directly to workers, there is nothing to prevent such offers being made. The EAT decision suggests that where negotiations have reached a genuine impasse, it may still be possible to go directly to staff. Taking such an approach can be high-risk given the potential liabilities. In this case, the total award to the Claimant group was around £425,000. Any employer who is contemplating making offers directly to staff that would change collectively agreed terms (even if the union will be able to renegotiate at a later date) will need to be sure that they have exhausted the agreed negotiation procedures with the union, and any dispute provisions, so they can evidence a genuine impasse before considering a direct approach to staff based on business need.
For more information
If you require assistance with your working arrangements, please get in touch with your usual contact in our Employment Team or speak to Matt Wort. You can find out more about our employment and data protection work on our website.
The engagement report found four key areas for improvement; key person risk, pension board management, protecting members from scams and handling employer-related risks.
Many local authorities have declared a “climate emergency”; heat networks can be a part of the solution.
The Government have announced that there will be urgent reviews leading to the discharge of wrongly detained young people.
A review conducted by the MoJ found that the costs of the OPG to supervise deputyships between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2015 did not match the fees that the MoJ had set.
Final accounts may mark the end of the delivery phase, but risks remain that must be managed appropriately to avoid disputes.
Following a consultation earlier this year, the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) has now published the final form of the new Rent Standard.
Following their consultation earlier this year, the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) has now published the final form of the new Rent Standard.
We are delighted to announce the following promotions within Anthony Collins Solicitors.
Procuring organisations who have to make substantial changes to a contract during an OJEU tender process can breathe a sigh of relief.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.