This tribunal decision provides a stark reminder to employers of the information on agency workers that they have been required to produce during redundancy and TUPE consultations since amendments to legislation made on 1 October 2011.
In United States of America v Nolan  IRLR 1020 ECJ, the ECJ held that it had no jurisdiction to answer the Court of Appeal's referred question seeking guidance as to the starting point for consultation about collective redundancies as the employer concerned was a sovereign nation not covered by the relevant Directive.
A model letter to confirm union access to employees who may be affected by "redundancy". This includes where there is a proposal to vary contractual terms and conditions may result in "redundancies".
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has provided a reminder of how "establishment" should be defined for the purposes of consulting collectively on redundancies under s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The European Court of Justice has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the reference from the Court of Appeal seeking clarification on when the obligation to consult on collective redundancies is triggered.
In University of Stirling v University and College Union  IRLR 266 EAT, the EAT held that dismissals because of the expiry of fixed-term contracts were for a reason related to the employees concerned. Accordingly, they were not redundancy dismissals within the meaning of s.195 of TULR(C)A, and did not trigger the statutory duty on the employer to consult in respect of collective redundancies.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to collective redundancies.