In Guisado v Bankia SA and others, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that there is nothing in EU law to prevent a pregnant worker from being included in collective redundancies.
In this Spanish case, the Advocate General has suggested that a collective redundancy does not always qualify as an "exceptional case" permitting the dismissal of a pregnant worker.
The Court of Appeal has held that the legislative provision that excludes park police constables from enjoying collective consultation rights is in breach of their, and their union's, art.11 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employment tribunal failed to consider whether or not the "perfunctory" and "insensitive" nature of a long-serving employee's redundancy consultation made his dismissal unfair.
In Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL and another  IRLR 51 ECJ, the ECJ held that, where an employee resigns in response to the employer making unilateral changes to essential terms in the employment contract for reasons not related to the employee concerned, this will amount to a "redundancy" within the meaning of art.1(1)(a)(i) of the Collective Redundancies Directive (98/59/EC).
On this week's XpertHR Weekly, we look the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing, British Gas Trading Ltd v Lock and another on the calculation of holiday pay and other key cases likely to have a practical impact on HR in 2016.
A Northern Ireland tribunal has awarded protective awards of 90 days' pay to former City Link employees over the company's failure to consult on their redundancies.
The Supreme Court has held that the US Government had collective redundancy consultation obligations towards civilian workers during the closure of a US army base in the UK.
In E Ivor Hughes Educational Foundation v Morris and others  IRLR 696 EAT, the EAT held that the obligation to consult on collective redundancies was triggered when it was decided that a school would close unless pupil numbers increased - rather than when the final decision to close was made once the required increase had not occurred.
In Lyttle and others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Ltd  IRLR 577 ECJ, the ECJ held that the Collective Redundancies Directive must be interpreted as permitting national legislation that imposes an obligation of information and consultation only where at least 20 employees in a local employment unit are to be dismissed, rather than where an aggregate of 20 employees across the whole undertaking are to be dismissed.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy information and consultation.