Case Summary: National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers & Another v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive t/a Nexus [2024] UKSC 37

By Jo Seery Professional Support Lawyer

& Matthew Rowlinson Employment Rights Lawyer

Background 

This Supreme Court case addressed the complex interplay between collective agreements, individual employment contracts, and the legal doctrine of rectification. It arose from a dispute between Nexus (Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive) and two trade unions—RMT and Unite—over the interpretation of a 2012 collective agreement, referred to as the "letter agreement." The issue centred on whether employees' shift allowances should increase after a productivity bonus was consolidated into basic pay. 

Following prior litigation, including the Anderson case, which upheld the unions’ interpretation, Nexus sought rectification of the letter agreement. This appeal explored whether collective agreements and related employment contracts could be rectified to reflect an alleged mutual mistake in their wording. 

Key Issues 

1. Can a collective agreement that is not legally binding be rectified? 

• The Supreme Court clarified that rectification is not precluded by the legally unenforceable status of a collective agreement. The letter agreement’s incorporation into individual employment contracts gave it legal consequences, making rectification relevant.  

2. Who are the proper defendants in a rectification claim? 

• Nexus sued the unions rather than the affected employees. The Court held that the proper defendants were the employees whose contracts incorporated the letter agreement and would be affected by rectification.

3. Can rectification apply to individual contracts derived from collective agreements? 

• The Court rejected the notion that rectification could bypass the collective agreement itself and target the contracts of employment directly. The mistake to be rectified (according to Nexus) was contained in the collective agreement, so it was this document that ought to be the target of rectification.

4. Could Nexus have raised rectification in the earlier Anderson case? 

• The Court ruled that Nexus should have raised rectification in its defence during the Anderson proceedings. Even though employment tribunals lack the power to formally rectify documents, they can consider rectification principles when assessing the substance of disputes, insofar as, where mistakes are identified in documents.  

5. Was Nexus’s rectification claim against the unions an abuse of process? 

• The Court agreed with the lower courts that it was an abuse of process for Nexus to pursue rectification in a way that undermined the settled Anderson decision. Nexus had failed to address the issue appropriately in prior litigation and could not relitigate it.  

Supreme Court Decision 

The Supreme Court dismissed Nexus’s appeal, holding that: 

• Rectification of the letter agreement could only be pursued against the affected employees, not the unions. 

• Any attempt by Nexus to use rectification to alter the outcome of the Anderson proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. 

• Future rectification claims must involve the proper parties and cannot retroactively affect previously adjudicated claims. 

Significance 

This judgment is a critical reminder of the legal standing of collective agreements and the proper approach to addressing drafting errors or disputes. Key takeaways include: 

• Proper Defendants: Claims that seek to alter employment terms derived from collective agreements must include the employees affected, not just the unions. 

• Finality in Litigation: Employers cannot revisit settled decisions by raising new legal arguments in subsequent proceedings. 

• Tribunal Jurisdiction: While tribunals cannot formally rectify documents, they may consider rectification principles in resolving wage and contract disputes.