Topics

Redundancy information and consultation

New and updated

  • Date:
    29 April 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Collective redundancies: 'Proposing to dismiss' may include proposing to redeploy

    In Hardy v Tourism South East, the EAT holds that a proposal to redeploy 26 employees on the closure of a regional office amounted to a plan to dismiss 20 or more employees and fell within s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

  • Date:
    15 April 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Collective redundancies: Consultation must precede notice of redundancy

    In Junk v Kühnel, the ECJ holds that articles 2 to 4 of Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies must be construed as meaning that the event constituting "redundancy" is the declaration by the employer of its intention to terminate the employees' contracts of employment.

  • Date:
    3 April 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Case round up

    Sarah Collins of Addleshaw Goddard brings you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation and advice on what to do about them.

  • Date:
    1 April 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    European Court of Justice: ECJ rules on collective redundancies

    In Case C-188/03: Irmtraud Junk v Wolfgang Kühnel, the European Court of Justice ruled that a collective redundancy takes place at the point at which the notice to terminate an employment contract is issued, rather than when the employment contract terminates on expiry of the notice period.

  • Date:
    11 March 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Redundancy: Protective award made despite insolvency

    In Smith and another v Cherry Lewis Ltd (in receivership), the EAT holds that protective award made under s.189 of TULR(C)A 1992 is intended to be a collective, punitive sanction on the employer, not compensation for individual loss to the employees.

  • Date:
    25 February 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Redundancy: Consultation may be required where variations proposed

    In Transport and General Workers Union v Manchester Airport plc, the EAT holds that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that the large number of meetings held between the employer and trade union representatives, local and national, did amount to meaningful consultation carried out in good faith as required by s.188.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    When does a "redundancy" take place for the purposes of the EU Collective Redundancies Directive?

  • Date:
    15 February 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Junk v Kühnel, European Court of Justice, January 2005

    Eversheds presents an overview of Junk v Kühnel.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    What may happen if an employer fails to comply with redundancy consultation procedures?

  • Date:
    1 June 2004
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.