One of the conditions of the collective agreement is that persons who use the contract have not been entitled to re-employment in the public service by a public body (as defined in the financial emergency measures in the 2009-2011 public interest acts) for a period of 2 years from the termination of the employment relationship. Collective agreements in Germany are legally binding, which is accepted by the population and does not worry them.  [Failed verification] While in Britain there was (and still is) an attitude of “she and us” in labour relations, the situation is very different in post-war Germany and other northern European countries. Germany has a much broader spirit of cooperation between the social partners. For more than 50 years, German workers have been legally represented on company boards.  Together, management and workers are considered “social partners”.  Although the collective agreement itself is not applicable, many of the negotiated conditions concern wages, conditions, leave, pensions, etc. These conditions are included in an employee`s employment contract (whether or not the worker is a member of the union); and the employment contract is of course applicable. If the new conditions are not acceptable to individuals, they may contradict their employer; but if the majority of workers have agreed, the company will be able to dismiss the plaintiffs, normally with impunity. In the Common Law, Ford v A.U.E.F.
, the courts once ruled that collective agreements were not binding. Second, the Industrial Relations Act of 1971, introduced by Robert Carr (Minister of Labour in Edward Heath`s cabinet), provided that collective agreements were binding, unless a written contractual clause explained otherwise. After the death of the Heath government, the law was rescinded to reflect the tradition of the UK`s labour relations policy of legally refraining from workplace disputes. Nevertheless, a party`s insistence on a fixed term of the contract is not necessarily an unfair labour practice. The NLRB and the courts that re-enforce and enforce their injunctions are not prepared to replace their judgment with that of the parties and will not judge the content of collective agreements (NLRB v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.p. 395, 72 pp. Ct. 824, 96 L. Ed.
1027 ). Moreover, the use of “economic weapons” such as pressure tactics, pickets and strikes to impose bargaining concessions is not necessarily bad faith bargaining (NLRB v. Insurance Agents` International Union, 361 U.p. 477, 80 pp. Ct. 419, 4 L. Ed. 2d 454 ). Content Collective agreements can in principle deal with all matters relating to the collective autonomy of the social partners. However, there are a number of exceptions to this principle. On the one hand, the law establishes a positive delimitation of the content of the agreements.
Article 5 of the Collective Relations Act stipulates that they may regulate the reciprocal rights and obligations of workers and employers; the relationship between the signatory parties to an agreement; and procedures for the settlement of disputes arising from individual contracts of employment, the introduction of conciliation, mediation and arbitration procedures. . . .