Information and consultation
In Darnton v Bournemouth University [2010] IRLR 294 EAT, the EAT held that the employer's error regarding the deadline for negotiation of an information and consultation agreement did not amount to a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with the information and consultation Regulations. It awarded a penalty of £10,000.
In Shanahan Engineering v Unite the Union EAT/0411/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that, in relation to collective redundancy consultation, although a customer's instruction amounted to "special circumstances", absolving the employer of the need to start consultation 30 days in advance of the first redundancy, it did not absolve it of all obligations to consult. However, the tribunal should have taken into account the special circumstances of the case in setting the level of the protective award.
In Unison v Somerset County Council and others EAT/0043/09, the EAT held that the employees "affected by" a TUPE transfer for the purposes of consultation with employee representatives were those who would or might be transferred, those whose job is jeopardised by the proposed transfer, and those with internal job applications pending. The definition did not extend to those who might in the future apply for a vacancy in the part of the undertaking transferred.
Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.
In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union [2009] EWCA Civ 1045 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employer must inform representatives of employees who may be affected by a TUPE transfer of its considered and genuine view as to the legal implications of the proposed transfer. However, reg.13(2)(b) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 does not impose strict liability on the employer as to the accuracy of that information. Therefore the employer will not be in breach if the information that it gives reflects a genuine but mistaken belief as to the legal implications.
In Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK Ry and others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy [2009] IRLR 944 ECJ, the ECJ held that an employer's duty under the Collective Redundancies Directive to consult workers' representatives about the possibility of redundancies arises when strategic decisions or changes in activities make the employer contemplate or plan for collective redundancies.
In Amicus and another v City Building (Glasgow) LLP and others [2009] IRLR 253 EAT, the EAT held that, after a transfer, the transferee employer is not obliged to consult with representatives of the transferred employees in respect of the measures that it proposes to take.
Twenty-eight years after its birth, TUPE still raises thorny questions. Its complexity is evidenced by the number of groundbreaking tribunal cases which have come to the fore recently, many of which could have far-reaching ramifications at a time of economic instability, writes Lesley Murphy.
In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.
In Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB and another [2008] IRLR 187, the EAT refused to strike out a claim alleging breach of consultation duties arising pursuant to the TUPE Regulations 2006.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to information and consultation.