Claimant v Egger (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent's sole or main purpose in making the pay offer was not to avoid collective bargaining (the prohibited result under s.145B TULRCA 1992). The main purpose was to achieve fairness across both Barony and Hexham sites in the context of a harmonised workforce. The respondent had genuinely sought to engage with the union to reach agreement, an impasse had been reached, and the offer was made to ensure fairness to all employees while continuing discussions with the union. The prohibited result was not the sole or main purpose.
Facts
The respondent operated two plants (Barony and Hexham) with separate collective agreements with Unite the union. In 2024 pay negotiations, Hexham members accepted a 5% pay offer but Barony members voted 92% to reject it. The respondent, concerned about fairness to all employees and the harmonised pay structure between the sites, decided to implement the 5% increase across both sites while continuing discussions with the union. The union brought claims under s.145B TULRCA 1992 alleging the offer was made to avoid collective bargaining.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claims. The tribunal found that the claimants had no contractual right to the same pay as Hexham employees based on harmonisation. More importantly, the tribunal concluded that the respondent's main purpose in making the offer was to achieve fairness across both sites, not to avoid collective bargaining. The respondent had genuinely engaged with the union, an impasse had been reached, and the offer was made in good faith while discussions continued.
Practical note
An employer does not breach s.145B TULRCA 1992 if its main purpose in making a direct offer during stalled collective bargaining is to achieve fairness and consistency across workforces, rather than to avoid collective bargaining itself, provided genuine attempts to reach collective agreement have been made and continue.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4106717/2024
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- hourly paid maintenance and production employees
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister