“A written agreement on working conditions and conditions of employment, intermediate conditions – It is done continuously and in different forms; and take it very seriously. Workers and employers disagree and use several trade union actions to find remedies. In the midst of these labour disputes, parties are, at some stages, forced to rethink. Employers and workers meet to discuss, negotiate and find pleasant billing terms. Most of the time, this regulation is enhanced by the development of certain documents containing the points of convergence of the parties. This usually marks, but not always, a ceasefire, a solution to the trade conflict. This “ceasefire agreement” is commonly referred to as the collective agreement (CBA). `… “I believe that this proposal is made on the basis that exhibitions are binding collective agreements which, on the one hand, are binding between the social partners, on the one hand, and the parties directly involved, in such cases, unless the worker is able to enforce the collective agreements, namely none of the parties, as in this case for lack of contractual capacity. , this is the principle of lack of contractual capacity. that the court refused to impose collective agreements between the social partners in the case of an employee, without the collective agreements being first incorporated into his employment contract… See Holland v.

London Society of Compositors (1924) 40 T.L.R. 440. The doctrine of the exercise of the contract is so fundamental to the application of contractual obligations between the contracting parties, if I may repeat, that, in order to enforce a collective agreement at the level of the employer and its workers, the agreements must first be integrated into the conditions of employment of the workers. See Roblces v. Barnard (1961) 2 AER 827 by Lord Donovan on the union`s authority to act to bind its members. “Instead of insisting on the explicit inclusion of a collective agreement in an individual`s employment contract, judges should consider how their provisions were treated by the parties after the implementation of the collective agreement. If there is evidence that management acted and took advantage of it, judges should draw an intention from the fact that management considers the agreement to be binding. (vii) On the one hand, there is the theory of user and use. This is the case when an employee sues an employer on the basis of the employment contract and not the CBA. The KBA is qualified only as the custom of the profession considered to have existed under the collective agreement of the union concerned. Anything that goes against the two elements mentioned above would likely render the worker unprotected by the corresponding collective agreement, despite the tireless efforts of the union in its implementation.

It seems that the current position of the law is that a worker can only impose a KBA if the terms of the agreement are to be applied or if the full agreement has been included in his employment contract. In OSOH – ORS V. UNITY BANK PLC (2013) 1 SCM 149, the Tribunal found; “However, the provisions of section 47, paragraph 1 , (see s.s.) write that collective agreements must be concluded in writing to formalize agreements. between an employer or an employer organization and a union or union), but as between employers and workers as respondents and callers, this is only the case if they have been included in the workers` employment contracts in order to be implemented against any infringement arising from the existence of one of the parties to the contractual relationship.