Mr. R C Wilson Additional Claimants: See the table at paragraph 3 below v Synthite Ltd — 2023

The tribunal found that Unite was recognised by Synthite Ltd for collective bargaining about pay, and that there was also a collective agreement relating to pay within section 178 TULRCA 1992. It relied on the parties’ long course of dealings, including annual pay discussions led by Mr Jones, occasions when offers were adjusted, and the fact that some pay rounds had gone to ballot. The tribunal held that the absence of a written recognition agreement was not fatal and that recognition had continued since at least 1998.

On the facts of 2022, Mr Bardsley met Mr Wilson and Mr Davies in April and May. The tribunal found that the company first indicated 4%, later 5%, and that the June 2022 correspondence and letters showed the company had decided to implement a 5% pay rise for all staff. It rejected the suggestion that the discussions were merely informal chats, and found that the implementation letter and the surrounding communications amounted to an offer within section 145B. The tribunal held that the offer date was 6 June 2022, so the complaints were in time.

Applying Kostal and the related authorities, the tribunal held that acceptance of the offer had the prohibited result because the pay term would no longer be determined by collective agreement. It found a real possibility that, if the offer had not been made and implemented, the pay increase would have been determined by collective bargaining, noting the earlier negotiations and the union’s request for further discussions after the ballot. The tribunal also found that the respondent’s sole or main purpose was to achieve the prohibited result, namely to avoid further negotiation with the union and move away from collective bargaining. Each claimant was awarded £4,554 under section 145E.