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.
The Advocate General has taken the view that the obligation on an employer to consult on collective redundancies is triggered when it makes a strategic or commercial decision that compels it to contemplate or plan for collective redundancies.
The cases below examine various issues arising under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE), including service provision changes; collective consultation; an employee's objection to the transfer and a substantial; and detrimental change to working conditions.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, where a dismissal is because of the normal expiry of a fixed-term contract, the dismissal does not count for the purposes of collective redundancy consultation, because one of the reasons for dismissal will be "related to the individual concerned".
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.