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.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in a collective redundancy situation, there will be an election of employee representatives where the number of nominees equates to the number of available places, even where there is no ballot.
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.