28:
92:
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
93:‘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.
81:
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.
318:
223:
201:
147:
389:
122:
78:
281:
394:
322:
384:
188:
160:
115:
77:
Albury
Brothers Ltd was a member of a British jewellers association which negotiated terms and conditions for workers across the industry. The
241:
27:
255:
38:
267:
108:
296:
307:
174:
212:
66:
332:
231:
150:
138:
89:
192:
178:
164:
227:
378:
355:
344:
62:
271:
287:
245:
100:
58:
National Union of Gold, Silver, and Allied Trades v Albury
Brothers Ltd
104:
44:
34:
20:
79:National Union of Gold, Silver, and Allied Trades
116:
8:
123:
109:
101:
26:
17:
390:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
283:Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom
189:R (National Union of Journalists) v CAC
161:Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v CAC
242:CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service
7:
256:Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board
39:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
268:Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom
50:Trade union, collective bargaining
14:
395:1979 in United Kingdom case law
385:United Kingdom labour case law
1:
297:Employment Relations Act 1999
131:Collective bargaining sources
308:NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd
21:NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd
175:R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v CAC
411:
341:
329:
316:
304:
294:
278:
264:
252:
238:
221:
209:
199:
185:
171:
157:
145:
136:
49:
25:
213:Gallagher v Post Office
67:collective bargaining
351:
350:
333:Luce v Bexley LBC
65:case, concerning
54:
53:
402:
284:
125:
118:
111:
102:
30:
18:
410:
409:
405:
404:
403:
401:
400:
399:
375:
374:
369:
364:
352:
347:
337:
325:
312:
300:
290:
282:
274:
260:
248:
234:
217:
205:
195:
181:
167:
153:
141:
139:ECHR article 11
132:
129:
99:
90:Lord Denning MR
87:
75:
12:
11:
5:
408:
406:
398:
397:
392:
387:
377:
376:
373:
372:
368:
365:
363:
360:
359:
358:
349:
348:
342:
339:
338:
330:
327:
326:
317:
314:
313:
305:
302:
301:
295:
292:
291:
279:
276:
275:
265:
262:
261:
253:
250:
249:
239:
236:
235:
222:
219:
218:
210:
207:
206:
200:
197:
196:
186:
183:
182:
172:
169:
168:
158:
155:
154:
146:
143:
142:
137:
134:
133:
130:
128:
127:
120:
113:
105:
98:
95:
86:
83:
74:
71:
52:
51:
47:
46:
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
407:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
383:
382:
380:
371:
370:
366:
361:
357:
356:UK labour law
354:
353:
346:
340:
335:
334:
328:
324:
320:
315:
310:
309:
303:
298:
293:
289:
286:
285:
277:
273:
270:
269:
263:
258:
257:
251:
247:
244:
243:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
215:
214:
208:
203:
198:
194:
193:EWCA Civ 1309
191:
190:
184:
180:
177:
176:
170:
166:
163:
162:
156:
152:
149:
144:
140:
135:
126:
121:
119:
114:
112:
107:
106:
103:
96:
94:
91:
84:
82:
80:
72:
70:
68:
64:
63:UK labour law
60:
59:
48:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
331:
306:
280:
266:
254:
240:
216:3 All ER 712
211:
187:
179:EWCA Civ 512
173:
159:
88:
76:
61:ICR 84 is a
57:
56:
55:
15:
319:TULRCA 1992
224:TULRCA 1992
202:TULRCA 1992
165:Scot CS 168
148:TULRCA 1992
379:Categories
367:References
345:UK labour
299:ss 10-15
272:ECHR 552
97:See also
85:Judgment
45:Keywords
336:ICR 591
323:168-170
259:ICR 221
228:137-166
311:ICR 84
288:ECHR 4
246:UKHL 6
151:Sch A1
362:Notes
204:s 179
73:Facts
35:Court
343:see
230:and
321:ss
232:275
226:ss
381::
69:.
124:e
117:t
110:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
