If you were paid an allowance for tools would that money have to be spent on tools which were work related and not already supplied by your employer?
Most people would think so but not the Eastern Bay Independent Industrial Workers Union.
The union said that the clause should be read literally and Pedersen could not impose any conditions, as long as it was for the purchase of tools.
Pedersen replied that it was implicit in the agreement that the tools had to be work-related and secondly they had to be tools not already provided by the company.
Chief Employment Court judge Graeme Colgan said in his March judgment that the implied conditions were so obvious, “they really go without saying”.
Obviously obvious to almost everyone with the obvious exception of the union.
This is the sort of silly behaviour which gives unions a bad name.