Collective redundancies - information and consultation

New and updated

• Date:

  1 June 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Susie Radin v GMB

  In Susie Radin v GMB and others [2004] IRLR 400 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employment tribunal had not erred in making a protective award for the maximum period of 90 days in respect of the employers' failure to consult with the union over a proposal to close a factory and dismiss all employees as redundant, notwithstanding the tribunal's finding in relation to the employees' claims of unfair dismissal that, in those circumstances, consultation would have been futile.

• Date:

  19 December 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Collective redundancies: "Proposal to dismiss" was made when directors approved decision

  In Dewhirst Group v GMB Trade Union, the EAT affirms that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered at the point at which a "proposal" to dismiss employees is made.

• Date:

  1 November 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up

  Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

• Date:

  1 July 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up

  Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

• Date:

  15 June 2002

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy consultation: Conflicting UK and EU rules on redundancy consultation

  In MSF v Refuge Assurance plc and United Friendly Assurance, the EAT holds that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered when there is an actual "proposal" to dismiss employees.

• Date:

  1 August 2001

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Collective redundancies: Employer failed to consult unions about ways of avoiding collective redundancies

  In Middlesbrough Borough Council v Transport and General Workers' Union and another, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's finding of fact that an employer failed to consult representatives of two trade unions that it recognised, in respect of more than 100 employees whom it was proposing to make redundant within 90 days, about ways of avoiding the dismissals.

• Type:

  FAQs

  What should redundancy consultation be about?

• Date:

  1 September 2000

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Collective redundancies: Imposition of new terms constituted proposed "dismissal as redundant"

  An employer that gave notice to terminate employees' existing contracts of employment, and offered to re-engage them on new terms, had a duty to consult employee representatives before imposing the new terms, holds the EAT in GMB v Man Truck & Bus UK Ltd.

• Date:

  1 September 2000

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Scotch Premier Meat Ltd v Burns and others

  In Scotch Premier Meat Ltd v Burns and others [2000] IRLR 639 EAT, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had not erred in holding that the employers were "proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees" within the meaning of s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, notwithstanding that, as an alternative option, they were considering selling the business as a going concern.

• Date:

  15 April 1996

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy consultation: Definition of "establishment" under Collective Redundancies Directive

  An "establishment" for the purposes of the EC Collective Redundancies Directive means the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties, rules the ECJ in Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark.