Henry v London General Transport Services
| Henry v London Greater Transport Services Ltd | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Decided | 22 March 2001 |
| Citation(s) | [2002] EWCA Civ 488 |
| Keywords | |
| Contract of employment | |
Henry v London Greater Transport Services Ltd [2002] EWCA 488 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an employment contract requires
Facts
The Transport and General Workers Union negotiated with a management buy-out (via share transfer) prospector for a collective agreement that would mean less pay and worse conditions for members. 63 members, including Mr Carlton Henry, objected. The other 1500 agreed to it. The 63 claimed for unlawful wage deductions under ERA 1996 s 13. Had their contracts been varied by collective agreement, in absence of an express incorporation clause in their contracts? There had been no ballot, which was workplace custom, so the 63 argued that there was no incorporation.
Mr S Juss represented the workers. The Employment Tribunal upheld the claim of the 63, and by continuing to work for 2 years under protest, they had never consented. However the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer’s appeal, but remitted to trial whether a ballot was in fact reasonable, certain and notorious.
Judgment
Pill LJ rejected the employees’ appeal. It said, first, that the tribunal had not justified its conclusion that the employees had not consented by working normally for two years. Second, it needed to be asked whether it was customary – as well as a collective agreement with a ballot binding the workforce – if a collective agreement without a ballot could bind the workforce.
Longmore LJ and Sir Martin Nourse agreed.