The legal position of a boycott?

[fishtank]

Refusal of partial performance

An employer is entitled to refuse to accept a partial performance of the contract of employment offered by employees. This means telling employees that they should only attend work when they are prepared to work in full compliance with their contracts. Until they do so they will have no entitlement to pay.

The extent of the breach is immaterial to an employer's entitlement in law to refuse partial performance, although it is an important industrial relations consideration. This was illustrated in the case of Wiluszynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1989] IRLR 259 in which employees were instructed by their union to refuse to answer elected members' queries. This formed only a very small part of their duties. The authority warned those taking part that until they were prepared to work normally, any work carried out would be regarded as voluntary and they would not be paid. The Court of Appeal upheld the Council's action

In many cases, employees will, despite such instructions, continue to attend work and claim pay for the work they have carried out. It is, therefore, imperative that employers make their non-acceptance of partial performance clear to employees. Specifically, employees should be made fully aware that any work that is undertaken will be regarded as voluntary and not attract any pay.

The courts have issued a warning to employers that they must be able to show that their position was genuine and that employees who continue to work could not have been confused or misled (for example, by being issued with work). The employer is not, however, required to send employees home or prevent them in some other way from performing any work if the employees insist on doing so.

So in the absence of any information from the union...is the Boycott a non-starter....again?

[db]

Refusal of partial performance

An employer is entitled to refuse to accept a partial performance of the contract of employment offered by employees. This means telling employees that they should only attend work when they are prepared to work in full compliance with their contracts. Until they do so they will have no entitlement to pay.

The extent of the breach is immaterial to an employer's entitlement in law to refuse partial performance, although it is an important industrial relations consideration. This was illustrated in the case of Wiluszynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1989] IRLR 259 in which employees were instructed by their union to refuse to answer elected members' queries. This formed only a very small part of their duties. The authority warned those taking part that until they were prepared to work normally, any work carried out would be regarded as voluntary and they would not be paid. The Court of Appeal upheld the Council's action

In many cases, employees will, despite such instructions, continue to attend work and claim pay for the work they have carried out. It is, therefore, imperative that employers make their non-acceptance of partial performance clear to employees. Specifically, employees should be made fully aware that any work that is undertaken will be regarded as voluntary and not attract any pay.

The courts have issued a warning to employers that they must be able to show that their position was genuine and that employees who continue to work could not have been confused or misled (for example, by being issued with work). The employer is not, however, required to send employees home or prevent them in some other way from performing any work if the employees insist on doing so.

So in the absence of any information from the union...is the Boycott a non-starter....again?

I shouldn't really say this but I hope so as it is a really odd idea!

[Ahebban]

I agree with you on that one. However, I do think a second ballot is useful to cover industrial action upto strike action if only as a back up to the existing strike action.

I did a quick online search early today on collective bargaining agreements. Initial research showed it would appear that parties engaged in a collective bargaining agreement are not 'legally bound' to such an agreement, but are 'honour bound' to operate within the terms of the particular collective bargaining agreement. I found that as part of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Whether it has been updated in any form since then I have no idea. A lot more research required on that one!

[noggin1969]

I would say RM would bring DSA work in tell someone to sort it , they'll refuse and be suspended for not following a reasonable request causing the office to walk. That way RM could move blacked mail round causing a country wide walk out and they'll then try and starve us back.

[db]

I would say RM would bring DSA work in tell someone to sort it , they'll refuse and be suspended for not following a reasonable request causing the office to walk. That way RM could move blacked mail round causing a country wide walk out and they'll then try and starve us back.

Again, this is my worry also.

[dvbuk55]

Refusal of partial performance

The courts have issued a warning to employers that they must be able to show that their position was genuine and that employees who continue to work could not have been confused or misled (for example, by being issued with work). The employer is not, however, required to send employees home or prevent them in some other way from performing any work if the employees insist on doing so.

So in the absence of any information from the union...is the Boycott a non-starter....again?

I thought it had already done the legal round and was a no go. Add that effort to the work to rule, which those of us with any service, know how difficult that is to control. If these are our options, with the absence of striking, we are on a hiding to nothing and this looks like it has been an initiative designed to fail.

[Jynxx]

Could something not be argued along the lines of when your asked to post BNP d2d's? in our office some refused to post them and management had to, could the same reasoning not be followed with boycotting certain mail?

[UnhappyGremlin]

I personally think that, should a ballot be held and a boycott voted for, it will get challenged in court.
And unless a Judge says yes it's fine/legal, can't see it happening.

[Dee Plish]

IMHO, a DSA boycott would be, in practical terms, very difficult to implement. And given the legal stuff at the top of the thread, not the wisest move. I'm all for battling with an odious, ignorant, self-centred, mercenary, bullying and hateful employer, but action on DSA is not the best way to do this. Happy to stand corrected if the Union has a better idea than I can perceive.

[Donk]

I agree with you on that one. However, I do think a second ballot is useful to cover industrial action upto strike action if only as a back up to the existing strike action.

I did a quick online search early today on collective bargaining agreements. Initial research showed it would appear that parties engaged in a collective bargaining agreement are not 'legally bound' to such an agreement, but are 'honour bound' to operate within the terms of the particular collective bargaining agreement. I found that as part of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Whether it has been updated in any form since then I have no idea. A lot more research required on that one!

Moya herself said as much in Glasgow on Monday. There are apparently 70 odd such agreements in existence, none of them enforceable by either side. Hence, I would ssume the amount of stress she's putting on an agreement this time being "Legally Binding on both sides".

Whatever difference that would make would remain to be seen...

[sb9726]

if the DSA competitors joined the union and worked for better pay and T&C's would they still be competitive in the market?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Could something not be argued along the lines of when your asked to post BNP d2d's? in our office some refused to post them and management had to, could the same reasoning not be followed with boycotting certain mail?

No BNP election material is covered by a specific section with the Election Material agreement. Also you can refuse to deliver BNP leaflets to specific addresses if you think your safety may be put at risk. Neither situation will apply in this case, but a good off field question anyway. Hopefully the CWU will also be thinking out of the box.

[Postie45]

surely the CWU has some kind of competent legal team who would know the actual problems with this ? maybe theyre just using this a threat to dent competitors confidence in using RM for DSA.
If it comes to the point where we`re being told by RM deliver / sort DSA or not get paid, then id have a hard time justifying actually going into work and getting no pay.