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 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.
In Lancaster University v University and College Union [2011] IRLR 4 EAT, the EAT held that the university failed to comply with its statutory obligations to consult collectively on the expiry of fixed-term contracts. The tribunal was also entitled to make a protective award of 60 days' pay.
In Todd v Strain and others [2011] IRLR 11 EAT, the EAT held that the duty to give employee representatives information about a forthcoming transfer applies even where there are no measures being proposed that give rise to a duty to consult the representatives. Informing individual employees rather than representatives did not amount to compliance with the information requirements, but should have led the tribunal to award less than the maximum compensation of 13 weeks' pay.
In Brown v G4 Security (Cheltenham) EAT/0526/09, the EAT imposed a penalty of £20,000 on an employer that failed to comply with its obligations under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. The number of affected employees has limited relevance in determining the gravity of the breach.