The case hinges on whether PCS can enforce a contractual term that allows union subscriptions to be deducted directly from employees' salaries via payroll, under section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

Case Background

The appeals involve employees from the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). These employees, all PCS members, previously had their union subscriptions deducted through payroll (check-off arrangements). However, in 2014 and 2015, the Home Office, DEFRA, and HMRC discontinued these arrangements.

 

Legal Proceedings

The employees, alongside PCS, filed claims against their respective employers. The High Court ruled in favour of the employees and PCS, affirming that:
1. The check-off arrangements were part of the employees' employment contracts.
2. The employees did not accept any contractual changes by continuing to work after the withdrawal of the check-off arrangements and did not waive any breaches of their contractual rights.
3. PCS had the right to enforce the check-off term under section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
Appeal
The Home Office, DEFRA, and HMRC appealed the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s findings on the employees’ non-acceptance of contract variations. However, the Court of Appeal, by a majority, ruled that section 1 of the 1999 Act did not grant PCS the right to enforce the check-off term.
PCS has now taken the case to the Supreme Court, with a judgment in today's hearing expected later this year.