Closed Shop

-

Key points

Meaning of 'closed shop'

  • In simple terms, a closed shop (or union membership agreement) is an understanding or agreement between an employer and one or more trade unions whereby the employer agrees not to employ (or to continue to employ) any person who is not a member of one or other of the trade unions party to that agreement.

Protection of job applicants and existing employees

  • Nowadays, the closed shop is a legal irrelevancy. It can no longer be used as an excuse for denying a person a job or for dismissing (or disciplining) a person who refuses to be or remain a member of a trade union (even if the union in question is recognised by the employer as having bargaining rights in respect of a particular class or group of employees). Furthermore, an employer cannot lawfully demand a payment from a non-union employee (or presume to make a deduction from that employee's wages or salary) as an alternative to the payment of trade union dues. In short, an individual has the absolute right to decide whether or not he or she wishes to join (or remain a member of) a trade union. Any employer who undermines that right (or bows to trade union pressure to dismiss or victimise an employee who refuses to 'fall into line'), will be liable to pay very heavy compensation indeed. For further particulars, please turn to the sections titled Dismissal and Dismissal on grounds of trade union membership elsewhere in this handbook.

  • It is also unlawful for an employer to refuse to interview or employ a job applicant who is not a member of a trade union (or of a particular trade union) or who has made it clear that he (or she) has no intention of joining a particular trade union or any trade union. A job applicant may complain to an employment tribunal if he (or she) suspects that he has been denied a job (or a job interview) for one or other of those reasons. The complaint must be presented within three months of the alleged unlawful act. If the complaint is upheld, the tribunal will order the employer to pay up to £53,500 by way of compensation (section 137 and 140, Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992).

  • A person will be taken to have been refused employment because of his (or her) non-membership of a trade union (or because of his refusal to join a trade union) if an employer offers him a job on terms that no reasonable employer who wished to fill the post would offer.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Canteens and Rest Rooms for Employees-Cooperation, Employee's Duty Of

-
Canteens and Rest Rooms for Employees Key points Whether or not employers are legally-bound to provide their workers with dedicated canteens or rests room will depend in large part on the type of activity or process in which an employer is engaged. Regulation 25(5) of the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 - that apply to every workplace - states that 'suitable and sufficient facilities shall be provided for persons at work to eat meals where meals are regularly eaten in the workplace'. By way of explanation, the accompanying Approved Code of Practice points out that 'seats in work areas can be counted as eating facilities provided they are in a sufficiently clean place and there is a suitable surface on which to place food. Eating facilities', it continues, 'should include a facility for preparing or obtaining a hot drink, such as an electric kettle, a vending machine or a canteen'. Furthermore, 'workers who work ...
Read more

Dismissal for Lack of Qualifications

-
Image
Key points §   'Lack of qualifications' is one of the permitted (or legitimate) reasons for dismissal listed in section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The expression qualifications means any degree, diploma or other academic, technical or professional qualification relevant to the position that a dismissed employee held ( ibid. section 98(3)(b)). §   Although an employee can legitimately be dismissed for not having the qualifications needed to do his (or her) job, that is not necessarily an end to the matter. What an employment tribunal must decide is whether the dismissal was fair. Given the particular circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of his undertaking) did the employer act reasonably or unreasonably in treating the employee's lack of qualifications as a sufficient reason for dismissing him? That question, says section 98(4) of the 1996 Act, shall be determined 'in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case...
Read more

Redundancy (Rights of employees)

-
Key points The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (whose provisions have long since been repealed and largely re-enacted in the Employment Rights Act 1996) came into force on 6 December 1965. The two principal objectives of the Act were to require employers to compensate redundant employees for the loss of their livelihoods and to establish a Redundancy Fund from which employers would recoup a percentage (or rebate) of any statutory redundancy payment due and paid to a redundant employee. However, the already (by then) much-mutilated redundancy rebates scheme was abolished when the Employment Act 1989 came into force on 16 January 1990. It should be noted that the purpose of the redundancy payments scheme is to compensate a redundant employee for the loss of his (or her) investment in his job – not, as might be supposed, to provide him with sufficient funds to help him survive a period of unemployment. Accordingly, any employee who has lost his job because of redundancy may legit...
Read more