For expert advice on negotiating with trade unions, please contact our team of expert employment law and HR lawyers on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
In the case of Ineos Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd -v- Jones & Others [2022] EAT 82, the employer was found to have breached the collective bargaining regulations in its response to union actions.
20 September 2022
Case Study
When negotiating with a trade union representing employees, organisations are required to comply with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
Union members at Ineos had been represented by Unite, campaigning for improvements to pay.
After several months of negotiation, Ineos offered a 2.8% pay increase. The union (Unite) presented the offer to their members, who instructed Unite to seek an increased offer. In response, Ineos contacted all staff to inform them that it was unilaterally imposing the 2.8% pay increase. Ineos also announced that it was terminating collective bargaining with Unite.
Subsequently, the affected employees brought claims for unlawful inducement.
Case Study
Section 145B of TULRCA prohibits employers from inducing workers to bypass ongoing collective bargaining.
The Employment Tribunal decided that Ineos had breached section 145B. The employer appealed, arguing that imposing the offer where negotiations had ended was lawful. The EAT dismissed Ineos’ appeal, finding that the negotiations had not yet ended and the parties had been close to reaching an agreement. The EAT held that the employer was inducing staff to cease collective bargaining by imposing the pay increase prior to pay negotiations ending.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) confirmed that by implementing a pay award before completing negotiations with the Trade Union, an employer had breached TULRCA.
Compensation of £3,830 per Unite member at the company was ordered.
When undertaking collective bargaining or implementing changes to terms and conditions of employment, it is essential for employers to be wary of regulations and employee rights.
A previous case known as Kostal (Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others [2021] UKSC 47) also established that employers can move away from collective bargaining and offers be made, but only if the collective bargaining process has been properly concluded, and even then, employers should not purposefully thwart the collective bargaining process (as this may still have the effect of indirectly bypassing collective bargaining).
Here are some important questions to ask before implementing a new pay offer after trade union negotiations:
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More