J Abbey & Ors v Tesco Stores Limited & Anor
[2024] EAT 76
Dan Cornel Nistor & Anor v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW)
16 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1165 (KB)
High Court
Two guys sued their union because they got paid less than some colleagues after a company restructure. The judge said their arguments were weak and threw the case out. The judge also didn't impose extra restrictions on them bringing future claims but warned them to not bring frivolous cases.
Key Facts
- •Two claimants (father and son) sued their trade union, USDAW, for alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of statutory duty, and illegal use of union funds.
- •The dispute arose from Tesco's reorganization, leading to unequal pay between employees hired before and after 2012.
- •Claimants alleged USDAW failed to protect their interests during collective bargaining, resulting in them receiving less favourable pay terms.
- •The claimants acted in person and their claim was largely based on the alleged inequality of retained pay in the 'Six Book' collective agreement.
- •Claimants pursued grievances, employment tribunal claims against Tesco (settled via ACAS), and then brought the current High Court claim.
- •The defendant applied to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment.
Legal Principles
CPR rule 3.4(2): Court may strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds, is an abuse of process, or there's a failure to comply with a rule.
CPR rule 3.4(2)
CPR 24.3: Court may give summary judgment if a party has no real prospect of succeeding and there's no compelling reason for a trial.
CPR 24.3
Duty of care in collective bargaining: A trade union should act in the broad interests of its members as a whole, not owe a duty of care to individual members disadvantaged by a collective agreement.
Court's reasoning
Breach of fiduciary duty: Requires disloyalty or infidelity, not mere incompetence.
Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1
Sections 2-4 of the Fraud Act 2006 do not create civil liability.
Fraud Act 2006
Sections 39 and 57 of the Equality Act 2010 relate to employer discrimination and don't guarantee equal treatment in all circumstances; claims must be brought in an Employment Tribunal.
Equality Act 2010
Section 145 of the Equality Act 2010 claims must be brought in an Employment Tribunal.
Equality Act 2010
Section 20 of TULRCA relates to inducing breach of contract by industrial action, not the situation presented here.
TULRCA
Bribery Act 2010 creates criminal, not civil liability.
Bribery Act 2010
A trade union's duty to promote equal treatment does not bar it from negotiating agreements with varying terms for different workers.
Court's interpretation of USDAW Rule Book
Outcomes
Claim struck out and/or summary judgment for the defendant.
The claims disclosed no reasonable grounds, were an abuse of process, and had no real prospect of success. No justiciable claims under any relevant law were identified.
Application for an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) refused.
While the current claim was without merit, the claimants hadn't persistently issued such claims to meet the threshold for an ECRO. The court gave a warning against future vexatious litigation.