39:
103:
held that if a union had been recognised, even though Albury
Brothers Ltd had never dealt with the union before, then it should have observed the statutory procedure for handling redundancies. If there was no recognised union, the employer is under no obligation. Recognition requires conduct that is
104:‘sufficiently clear and distinct’. Simply approaching a union official about a letter is not implicit indication of recognition, and merely mentioning collective bargaining issues in conversation is not enough. Negotiation is needed.
92:
alleged that rates through the collective agreement were not being observed. Albury
Brothers Ltd wanted to make some employees redundant. The employees it had selected had just become union members.
329:
234:
212:
158:
400:
133:
89:
292:
405:
333:
395:
199:
171:
126:
88:
Albury
Brothers Ltd was a member of a British jewellers association which negotiated terms and conditions for workers across the industry. The
252:
38:
266:
49:
278:
119:
307:
318:
185:
223:
77:
343:
17:
242:
161:
149:
100:
203:
189:
175:
238:
389:
366:
355:
73:
282:
298:
256:
111:
69:
National Union of Gold, Silver, and Allied Trades v Albury
Brothers Ltd
115:
55:
45:
31:
90:National Union of Gold, Silver, and Allied Trades
127:
8:
134:
120:
112:
37:
28:
401:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
294:Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom
200:R (National Union of Journalists) v CAC
172:Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v CAC
253:CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service
7:
267:Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board
50:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
279:Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom
61:Trade union, collective bargaining
25:
406:1979 in United Kingdom case law
396:United Kingdom labour case law
1:
308:Employment Relations Act 1999
142:Collective bargaining sources
319:NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd
32:NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd
18:NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd
186:R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v CAC
422:
352:
340:
327:
315:
305:
289:
275:
263:
249:
232:
220:
210:
196:
182:
168:
156:
147:
60:
36:
224:Gallagher v Post Office
78:collective bargaining
362:
361:
344:Luce v Bexley LBC
76:case, concerning
65:
64:
16:(Redirected from
413:
295:
136:
129:
122:
113:
41:
29:
21:
421:
420:
416:
415:
414:
412:
411:
410:
386:
385:
380:
375:
363:
358:
348:
336:
323:
311:
301:
293:
285:
271:
259:
245:
228:
216:
206:
192:
178:
164:
152:
150:ECHR article 11
143:
140:
110:
101:Lord Denning MR
98:
86:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
419:
417:
409:
408:
403:
398:
388:
387:
384:
383:
379:
376:
374:
371:
370:
369:
360:
359:
353:
350:
349:
341:
338:
337:
328:
325:
324:
316:
313:
312:
306:
303:
302:
290:
287:
286:
276:
273:
272:
264:
261:
260:
250:
247:
246:
233:
230:
229:
221:
218:
217:
211:
208:
207:
197:
194:
193:
183:
180:
179:
169:
166:
165:
157:
154:
153:
148:
145:
144:
141:
139:
138:
131:
124:
116:
109:
106:
97:
94:
85:
82:
63:
62:
58:
57:
53:
52:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
418:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
393:
391:
382:
381:
377:
372:
368:
367:UK labour law
365:
364:
357:
351:
346:
345:
339:
335:
331:
326:
321:
320:
314:
309:
304:
300:
297:
296:
288:
284:
281:
280:
274:
269:
268:
262:
258:
255:
254:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
226:
225:
219:
214:
209:
205:
204:EWCA Civ 1309
202:
201:
195:
191:
188:
187:
181:
177:
174:
173:
167:
163:
160:
155:
151:
146:
137:
132:
130:
125:
123:
118:
117:
114:
107:
105:
102:
95:
93:
91:
83:
81:
79:
75:
74:UK labour law
71:
70:
59:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
342:
317:
291:
277:
265:
251:
227:3 All ER 712
222:
198:
190:EWCA Civ 512
184:
170:
99:
87:
72:ICR 84 is a
68:
67:
66:
26:
330:TULRCA 1992
235:TULRCA 1992
213:TULRCA 1992
176:Scot CS 168
159:TULRCA 1992
390:Categories
378:References
356:UK labour
310:ss 10-15
283:ECHR 552
108:See also
96:Judgment
56:Keywords
347:ICR 591
334:168-170
270:ICR 221
239:137-166
322:ICR 84
299:ECHR 4
257:UKHL 6
162:Sch A1
373:Notes
215:s 179
84:Facts
46:Court
354:see
241:and
332:ss
243:275
237:ss
392::
80:.
135:e
128:t
121:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
