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.
Sinead Jones is an associate, and Phil Dupres and Beckie Howlett are trainee solicitors at Addleshaw Goddard. They round up the latest rulings.
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.
In this case, the employment tribunal awarded 24,000 Woolworths employees 60 days' pay for the company's failure to consult collectively on their redundancies. However, around 3,000 staff who worked in Woolworths stores that had fewer than 20 employees missed out on protective awards, a result that is likely to be appealed.
The employer in this case fell into the classic trap of burying its head in the sand and failing to consult collectively with employees over the realistic possibility that its business might close and its workforce be made redundant.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy information and consultation.