Collective agreements meaning

Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition claims are predominantly governed by national law, and procedural as well as substantive rules differ markedly across the EU; accordingly, when planning competition litigation, assessments will need to be made for each individual jurisdiction. Possible causes of action Assess whether UK competition law has been breached (or EU competition law where the period predates the end of the Brexit transition period). Determine if the loss arises from an agreement or concerted practice between undertakings, particularly between competitors (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). Evaluate whether an undertaking that is arguably dominant—typically indicated by a substantial share of a relevant market—caused the loss through abusive conduct contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if before the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance). Consider whether other national or foreign competition laws have...

This checklist reviews the employment law considerations that arise when carrying out a business reorganisation. It addresses initial planning points, whether a redundancy situation exists, ‘some other substantial reason’ (SOSR), how the employer may resist claims about dismissals, whether collective consultation duties are engaged, changes to contractual terms and conditions, and if a TUPE transfer applies. It proceeds on the basis that there is a restructure but the undertaking continues to operate at the same site and, therefore, no ‘place of work’ redundancy arises. For broader guidance, see Business reorganisations—overview and Practice Note: Implementing a business reorganisation—employment issues. Initial considerations Assess the composition of the project team and safeguard project documentation to: preserve confidentiality and for consultation purposes (eg label all proposals as ‘subject to consultation’). See Practice Note: Implementing a business reorganisation—employment issues: Initial considerations limit circulation, where required, to protect legal advice privilege Consider whether non-disclosure agreements are required and, if so,...

Checklist This Checklist outlines the employment liabilities that emerge on a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246—commonly a TUPE transfer—and clarifies whether they pass from the transferor to the transferee. For more detailed guidance on what constitutes a relevant transfer, consult Practice Notes: TUPE—business transfers and TUPE—service provision changes. Regarding dismissals, the outcome can differ where the sole or principal ground for dismissal is an economic, technical or organisational reason (an ETO reason) that brings about changes to the workforce. For additional detail on ETO reasons, refer to Practice Note: TUPE—protection against dismissal—Dismissal for an ETO reason...

In this issue: Employment Rights Act 2025 Benefits Protected characteristics Confidentiality, duties and restrictions: enforcement Europe-EU New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Employment Rights Act 2025 Welsh Government consults on establishment of a Social Care Negotiating Body The Welsh Government has opened a consultation on creating a Social Care Negotiating Body (SCNB) using powers in the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025). The SCNB would be responsible for setting Fair Pay Agreements for Wales’s social care workforce. Feedback is invited on the organisation’s design, role and anticipated effects. Responses will inform the government’s understanding of sector perspectives on the SCNB, including the bargaining approach, who and what it should cover, dispute resolution, roll-out, as well as compliance and enforcement. The consultation closes on 28 April 2026. The exercise does not invite comments on the specifics...

On 4 July 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed challenges by Apple, Visa, Mastercard and Sony to the validity of commonly used funding arrangements that calculate a funder’s fee or return as a multiple of their outlay or costs in class actions and class action claims, a ruling expected to lift spirits across a funding sector seriously rocked by the Supreme Court’s PACCAR judgment and its effects. Macfarlanes LLP partner Malcolm Hitching said the outcome is significant because it recognises that collective proceedings are a necessary part of the legal landscape, that consumers do need protection, and that the Competition Appeal Tribunal is there to provide that protection. He observed that, had the Court of Appeal reached the opposite view, it would have been difficult to see how a funder could actually provide funding to a collective group of claimants. Sony and others had disputed whether litigation funding agreements, amended in response to a 2023 ruling by the top court, known as PACCAR, could be enforced....

In this issue: Prudential requirements Financial crime and sanctions Complaints, compensation and claims management Investigations, enforcement and discipline Regulation of capital markets Sustainable finance and ESG Banks and mutuals Investment funds and asset management UK MiFID II Consumer credit, mortgage and home finance Regulation of insurance FSMA regulated pensions activity Payment services and systems Financial Services Enforcement Database Daily and weekly news alerts Intraday news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Prudential requirements COREPER asked to endorse agreement on CCP concentration risk treatment After the European Parliament adopted, in April 2024, a proposal for a directive of the Parliament and the Council to amend Directive 2009/65/EC (UCITS), Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV) and the Investment Firms Directive (EU) 2019/2034 (IFD), the Council of the EU’s General Secretariat released an ‘I/A’ Item Note inviting the Council’s Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER) to confirm its agreement...

Film and TV glossary A–B Film and TV glossary E–H Film and TV glossary I–L Film and TV glossary M–P Film and TV glossary R–S Film and TV glossary T–W CAP Code for non-broadcast media The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (the CAP Code) serves as the principal framework governing non-broadcast adverts, promotional sales activity and direct marketing messages. It is drafted by the Committee on Advertising Practice (CAP), a self-regulatory body whose membership comprises organisations representing advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing and media industries. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) polices the CAP Code and may require the withdrawal or amendment of any advertisement that contravenes these standards. Refer to Practice Note: Advertising law and regulation. Channel 4 Channel 4 operates as a ‘publisher-broadcaster’: it produces no programmes internally, commissioning content from production companies across the UK. Cinematograph film Under the Copyright Act 1956 (CA 1956), films gained protection as...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

Employment laws in the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and Northern Ireland have much in common, as all operate within common law systems and many contemporary employment statutes flow from European Directives. Even so, divergences do exist and are likely to widen. This Practice Note outlines several distinctions between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Care is advised when handling matters in Northern Ireland, where the framework is becoming increasingly distinct from Great Britain. For details on the differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, see Practice Note: Northern Ireland employment law. Main areas of difference employment status categories leave entitlements qualifying period and remedies under unfair dismissals legislation redundancy entitlements protected conversations and settlement agreements employment tribunal procedures transfers of undertakings (TUPE) immigration Categories of employment status In the Republic of Ireland, individuals engaged in work are typically classified as either ‘employees’ or ‘independent contractors’. There is no...

1 Definitions Insert defined terms into the Share Purchase Agreement, including: Accounts Date; Business Day; Buyer; CA 2006; Company; Completion; Completion Date; Conditions; Contractor; Disclosure Letter; Employee; Employment Legislation; former; holding company; Sale Shares; Seller; Subsidiaries and subsidiary; TULRCA; TUPE; Warranties; and Worker... 2 Employment Directors: Listed in the Disclosure Letter; no others held out. Employees, Workers and Contractors: The Disclosure Letter gives anonymised terms, benefits, scheme eligibility and absences; contracts and policies annexed; work is exclusive; no return rights, pending offers, restrictive obligations, post‑Accounts Date changes, promised increases, or flexible requests; no hybrid arrangements offered or under negotiation. Termination: All roles terminable on three months or less without extra liability; no notices; Completion creates no rights or payments; no contractual redundancy scheme. Liabilities and payments: No termination payments promised; no contingent liabilities; consultation duties complied with; only routine pay, expenses and holiday due. Disputes and disciplinary: No EHRC enquiries, union disputes, claims, live disciplinary/capability/grievance cases, or unanswered Equality Act questions....

1 Definitions Additional terms for the Share purchase agreement include: Accounts Date; Business Day; Buyer; Company; Completion/Completion Date; Conditions; Contractor; Disclosure Letter; Employee/Worker; Employment Legislation; holding company/subsidiary; Sale Shares; Seller; Subsidiaries; TULRCA; TUPE; Warranties... 2 Employment Directors: as per the Disclosure Letter only. So far as the Seller is aware, the Disclosure Letter sets out principal terms for higher-paid Employees, Workers and Contractors; annexes contracts and policies; confirms exclusivity; no post-Accounts Date changes or promised rises; no flexible working requests; no breaches of confidentiality. Termination/redundancy and liabilities: so far as the Seller is aware, no notices or proposals; no contractual redundancy scheme beyond statute; no agreed termination payments; information/consultation duties observed; only routine sums due. Disputes: so far as the Seller is aware, no EHRC enquiries, industrial disputes, claims or proceedings; no live disciplinary/grievance issues; no unanswered Equality Act questions. Redundancy/TUPE: no collective redundancy notification/consultation obligation within 12 months; so far as the Seller is aware, no TUPE transfers in six...