Hollister v National Farmers' Union
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE EVELEIGH,SIR STANLEY REES |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Civ J0309-1 |
| Date | 09 March 1979 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1979] EWCA Civ J0309-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Eveleigh and
Sir Stanley Rees
MR. T.P. BARNES (instructed by Messrs. Hewitt Woollacott & Chown, London agents for Messrs. Randle Thomas & Thomas, Helston) appeared on behalf of the Applicant (Respondent).
MR. D. TURRIFF (instructed by Messrs. Ellis & Fairbairn, London) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Appellants).
The National Farmers' Union is a very important body in this country. They operate throughout the land through secretaries in the counties. In the greater part of England and Wales these secretaries have their own office or establishment - sometimes they operate from their own houses. They are paid a certain amount (not very much) by the union. Their real remuneration comes from being insurance agents for a closely allied concern, the National Farmers' Union Mutual Society Limited. That is the general set up throughout the country. But until recently it was different in Cornwall: because there there was a separate insurance concern called the Cornish Mutual Association. There were special arrangements. The group secretary was employed by the National Farmers' Union, but he received his commission from his work for the Mutual Association: and a payment was made to him by the National Farmers?? Union, almost as if he was a servant of theirs.
I need not go into all the difficulties, but the matter arose in this way. Mr. Jim Hollister was employed by the National Farmers' Union in Cornwall in 1971. Until 1976 he was employed under the special Cornish arrangement whereby his main remuneration depended on the work he did for the Cornish Mutual Association. But that was not at all satisfactory. The remuneration he received was not nearly as much as that received by the secretaries employed throughout the rest of England. One of the reasons for that was because the Cornish Mutual Association did not do life or fire assurance. So Mr. Hollister, with others, made complaints of the situation they were in in Cornwall. The people in the Head Office in London of the National Farmers' Union realised the difficulty in Cornwall. So they sought to make different arrangements with the CornishMutual Association. They tried for some time at the beginning of 1976: but they could not come to any satisfactory arrangements with the Cornish Mutual Association so as to improve the position of the secretaries in Cornwall. Faced with that position, they felt they had no alternative but to determine the arrangements with the Cornish Mutual Association: and, so to speak, bring Cornwall into line with the rest of England and Wales. Then the group secretaries in Cornwall would be in the same position as the other group secretaries in England and Wales. They would be virtually self-employed, they would have their own offices in their houses or in the towns, and operate by working for the National Farmers' Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited. They would be guaranteed a substantial amount of remuneration. Depending on whether they operated from an office or not, they would receive between £4,000 and £6,000 a year, plus commission at 10 per cent. There would also be pension arrangements.
There was great deal of correspondence between London and Cornwall about the new terms and arrangements which were being offered to the group secretaries. Mr. Hollister was not at all satisfied. He did not like the new proposals which were being made to him. For instance, the pension rights under the new arrangements would not be so good. There were meetings at Bristol and elsewhere. But Mr. Hollister could not be persuaded to accept the new arrangements. So the National Farmers' Union felt they could do nothing else in the matter but dismiss him. On the 25th October, 1976 this letter was written by the Director General in London to Mr. Hollister:
"Dear Mr. Hollister, Further to correspondence and discussion which has already taken place over the new Contractof Employment which has been offered to you. On behalf of the Council of the Union I hereby give you notice terminating your present Contract with effect from 25th January, 1977. I enclose herewith the new Contract which the Council of the Union will be pleased to enter into with you. If you wish to accept this, please sign it and return it to me before 8 November, 1976. As already mentioned to you the Council of the Union is agreeable to your making application to the National Farmers' Union Mutual Insurance Limited for their Insurance Agency for your area and if you accept the new contract I trust you will approach the local Branch Manager as soon as you have indicated your acceptance in order that the agency may become effective as soon as possible".
There it is, Mr. Hollister did not accept this new contract. So his employment was terminated. He was paid up to the end of it. Then, almost immediately, he took out an application to go before the industrial tribunal, claiming that he had been unfairly dismissed and claiming compensation under the 1974 Act. The National Farmers' Union gave as their answer that they had to reorganise their arrangements for Cornwall. They felt they had no option. They had offered him a new contract on good and reasonable terms: and, as he would not take it, they felt they had to dismiss him.
That matter was canvassed for five days before the industrial tribunal in London, Mr. Hollister appeared in person; a solicitor appeared for the National Farmers' Union; and the tribunal consisted of Mr. Martin Jukes (who is very experienced in industrial matters) and Mr. Jamieson. After those five days, they unanimously decided that Mr. Hollister's application failed, and was dismissed. They gave their reasons in veryconsiderable detail. They felt that the National Farmers' Union really had had no option in the matter: if they were to continue their business, they had to terminate the arrangement with the Cornish Mutual Association and they had to make new arrangements with the secretaries. I will read one or two sentences from their decision:
"They felt they were forced, and we agree that they were, to come to some radically different arrangement for the secretaries' salaries. One of the main objections to this taken by the applicant was that there had been no consultation with the group secretaries. It is quite true that the decision was come to that the association with the Cornish Mutual Assurance Company be ended. This was done without consulting the group secretaries. Indeed in our view it was wholly impracticable for the county branch to bring into negotiations and discussions with the Cornish Mutual Assurance Company representatives of the group secretaries".
So at that stage it is quite plain that the National Farmers' Union were perfectly right to terminate the arrangement with the Cornish Mutual: and were forced, in those circumstances, to come to new arrangements with the group secretaries.
As to the offer which was made by the National Farmers' Union to Mr. Hollister, the tribunal said this:
"It does seem to us that if you look at the remuneration, the offer made by the National Farmers' Union in accordance with the new arrangements provided a salary which compared favourably with what Mr. Hollister had been receiving before and was at least as good and probably in excess of the £4,500 which had been suggested as being appropriate by the Cornish Mutual Association. Accordingly we think that if you look atthe question of salary alone the new offer made did not in fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mrs Thompson v Miller Graphics Corniche Ltd: 1802326/2021
...not at liberty to investigate the commercial and economic reasons behind the decision (for example see Hollister v National Farmers’ Union 1979 ICR 542, CA, and James W Cook and Co (Wivenhoe) Ltd v Tipper and ors 1990 ICR 716, CA). This guidance in important in ensuring that a tribunal does......
-
Ms A Khatun v Winn Solicitors Ltd: 2501492/2020
...a kind such as to justify dismissal. There is no requirement that there must always be consultation (Hollister v National Farmers’ Union [1979] IRLR 238) but in the present case there should have been some consultation. Instead there was just threats of The respondent had produced some figu......
-
Ms C Johal v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council: 1300079/2017
...such as theft or fraud, physical violence, gross negligence or serious insubordination.” SOSR 320 In Hollister v National Farmers' Union [1979] IRLR 542 at 551 CA Lord Denning MR approved the Appeal Tribunal’s judgment of Arnold J [1978] ICR 713 at 722F:"We think it is sufficient if the occ......
-
McFarland vs Kincull Ltd t/a Ulster
...held that the threshold for justifying such dismissals was not so high. In particular, it was held in Hollister v National Farmers Union [1979] IRLR 238:- “Where there is a sound good business reason for a re-organisation and the only sensible way to deal with it is to terminate the existin......
-
Business transfers, employers’ strategies and the impact of recent case law
...See ERA 1996, s. 98(1)(b). See, for example, Ellis v. Brighton Cooperative Society [1976]IRLR 419; Hollister v. National Farmers' Union [1979] IRLR 238. The courts have dilutedthe test of the substantiality of the reason and all that needs to be shown is that thechanges were considered to b......