Misplaced Pages

Luce v Bexley LBC

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Luce v Bexley LBC
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
Citation ICR 591 (EAT)
Keywords
Trade union, collective bargaining

Luce v Bexley LBC ICR 591 (EAT) is a UK labour law case, concerning collective bargaining.

Facts

Bexley London Borough Council refused permission to six teachers to attend a lobby on Parliament organised by the TUC over proposed Conservative legislation. They claimed this breached their right to time off for union activities under (what is now) TULRCA 1992 section 170.

Judgment

Wood J held the phrase ‘any activities of an appropriate trade union of which the employee is a member’ must be given a meaning that is within ‘the ambit of the employment relationship’ in other words ‘between that employer, that employee and that trade union’. Because this lobby concerned political organisation, time off did not need to be granted. The activity went beyond the ambit.

Collective bargaining sources
ECHR article 11
TULRCA 1992 Sch A1
Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v CAC Scot CS 168
R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v CAC EWCA Civ 512
R (National Union of Journalists) v CAC EWCA Civ 1309
TULRCA 1992 s 179
Gallagher v Post Office 3 All ER 712
TULRCA 1992 ss 137-166 and 275
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service UKHL 6
Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board ICR 221
Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom ECHR 552
Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom ECHR 4
Employment Relations Act 1999 ss 10-15
NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd ICR 84
TULRCA 1992 ss 168-170
Luce v Bexley LBC ICR 591
see UK labour

Notes

References

Categories: