[7] Collective bargaining, between democratically organised trade unions and the enterprise's management, has been seen as a "single channel" for individual workers to counteract the employer's abuse of power when it dismisses staff or fix the terms of work.
Examples include requiring that employers do not act in an authoritarian manner,[70] do not call employees names behind their back,[71] do not treat workers unequally when upgrading pay,[72] do not run the company as a front for international crime,[73] or do not exercise discretion to award a bonus capriciously.
[74] There has been disagreement among judges about the extent to which the core implied term of mutual trust and confidence can be 'contracted out of', with the House of Lords having held that the parties may when they are "free" to do so, while others approach the question as a matter of construction of the agreement which is within exclusive judicial competence to define.
This, however, does not cover industrial action,[83] so following 18th century common law on part performance of work, employees who refused to 3 out of 37 hours a week in minor workplace disobedience had their pay cut for the full 37.
Because pension schemes save up significant amounts of money, which many people rely on in retirement, protection against an employer's insolvency, or dishonesty, or risks from the stock market were seen as necessary after the 1992 Robert Maxwell scandal.
First, it is an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 section 1(3) for an employer to intercept any private communication, such as reading email, searching an inbox, or tracking calls or websites, without lawful authority.
In Halford v United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights held that intercepting an employee's phone calls violated their private life, particularly since they had not been told of any extent of monitoring, and they had been given a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Collective agreements, which unions make with employers, usually aim to set fair scales of pay and working hours, require pensions, training and workplace facilities, and update standards as the enterprise changes.
Minor procedural irregularities that would not affect outcomes do not undermine an election,[221] but otherwise a Certification Officer can hear complaints about malpractice, make inquiries, and issue enforcement orders, which can in turn be appealed to the High Court.
[228] For example, in Edwards v Halliwell[229] a decision of the executive committee of the National Union of Vehicle Builders to increase membership fees was restrained, because the constitution required a two-thirds vote of members first.
Since the early success of the UK Labour Party in promoting working people's welfare through Parliament, both courts and Conservative governments attempted to suppress unions' political voice,[232] particularly compared to funding by employers through control of corporations.
[265] The long, problematic procedure, was partly based on the model of the US National Labor Relations Act 1935, but because of its cumbersome nature it strongly encourages the parties to seek voluntary agreement in the spirit of cooperation and good faith.
Though most collective agreements will come about voluntarily, the law has sought to ensure that workers have true freedom of association by prohibiting employers from deterring union membership, and by creating positive rights for members.
[309] There are a limited number of outright prohibitions on strike action, but in accordance with ILO Convention 87 this is only for workplaces that involve the truly essential functions of the state (for armed forces, police,[b] and prison officers[313][c]), and only when impartial arbitration is used as an alternative.
In the 1977 Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy[378] the Government proposed, in line with the new German Codetermination Act 1976, and mirroring an EU Draft Fifth Company Law Directive, that the board of directors should have an equal number of representatives elected by employees as there were for shareholders.
There have, at the initiative of the European Union been a growing number of "work councils" and "information and consultation committees", but unless an employer voluntarily concedes to staff having a binding say, there is no legal right to participate in specific questions of workplace policy.
[419] The ECJ, mostly in cases concerning sex discrimination under TFEU art 157, has held that an employer must show a "real need" for the practice that has a disparate impact, and it must be "unrelated" to the protected characteristic.
[425] In Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority[426] the ECJ held that although a speech therapist being paid less than a male counterpart could not be justified only on the ground that this resulted from different collective agreements, if a disparity came from market forces, this was an objective justification.
[434] Because treating disabled people equally based on ability to perform tasks could easily result in persistence of exclusion from the workforce, employers are bound to do as much as reasonably possible to ensure participation is not hindered in practice.
For characteristics other than disability, "hard" positive discrimination, through privileged contract terms, hiring and firing based on gender, race, sexuality, belief or age, or setting quotas for underrepresented groups in most jobs, is generally unlawful in the EU.
So in Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc,[494] a school teacher who also suffered psychiatric injury, but as a result of harassment and victimisation while he still worked, could claim for a full measure of damages for the breach of mutual trust and confidence.
In practice, the Court of Appeal has given conflicting judgments and remains unable to articulate what the test means, prompting the question of how a "hypothetical reasonable employer" standard under section 98(4)(a) should actually be applied.
For example, in a conduct case, HSBC Bank plc v Madden,[517] the Court of Appeal held that it was acceptable for a Tribunal to have decided that dismissing an employee for potential involvement in theft of credit cards was fair, even though an actual police investigation turned up no evidence.
[518] By contrast, in Bowater v Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust,[519] an employer argued a nurse who, while physically restraining a naked patient who was unconscious and having a seizure, said "It's been a few months since I have been in this position with a man underneath me" was lewd and deserved dismissal for her misconduct.
[521] Nevertheless, in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd[522] the House of Lords held that, in a case where a van driver was told he was redundant on the spot, if an employer can show the dismissal would be made regardless of whether a procedure was followed, damages can be reduced to zero.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the union that this represented a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of rewarding seniority, particularly since older workers might find alternative employment much harder to secure.
While this theory lacked evidence,[571] From 1979, the new Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher abandoned full employment as a goal, and triggered soaring inflation, as it began attacking organised labour.
Paying insurance was thought to impel the government to encourage full employment, while it also increases labour's bargaining power: workers need not accept any job on starvation wages, because they will have a minimum income to survive.
The desire to keep a cohesive workforce, and avoid the possibility of strike action, is the primary incentive for employers to negotiate in good faith with employee representatives, and ensure that there is a joint approach to upholding all workplace rights, such as pay, working time, safety, equal treatment and job security.
Proponents of an integrated approach have called for a "social clause" to be inserted into the GATT agreements, for example by amending article XX, which gives an exception to the general trade barrier reduction rules allowing imposition of sanctions for breaches of human rights.