Information and consultation
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
In Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (in administration) EAT/0350/07, the EAT held that the starting point for determining a protective award is 90 days' pay, even where fewer than 100 redundancies are involved and the minimum consultation period is 30 days.
In UK Coal Mining Ltd v (1) National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) (2) The British Association of Colliery Management EAT/0397/06 & EAT/0141/07, the EAT held that the duty to consult about ways of "avoiding" redundancies inevitably involves consultation about the reasons behind the proposed dismissals and, contrary to previous authority, is not limited to consultation about how the redundancies are to be effected.
Where the Central Arbitration Committee has found an employer to be in breach of certain obligations under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, the EAT may order the employer to pay a financial penalty to the secretary of state. In the first case to arise on this point, Amicus v MacMillan Publishers Ltd EAT/0185/07, the EAT ordered the employer to pay £55,000 in respect of a "very grave" breach.
In Optare Group Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union EAT/0143/07 the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a tribunal was right to hold that voluntary redundancies counted towards the total number of proposed redundancy dismissals at an establishment, which in this case was sufficient to trigger the statutory collective consultation requirements.
Judith Harris, professional support lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, outlines the latest legal rulings.
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Brauer Coley Ltd (in administration) [2007] IRLR 207 EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that where a trade union is successful in proceedings brought for failure to consult on collective redundancies, the protective award cannot be claimed by any employees in respect of whom the trade union was not recognised by the employer.
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
In Leicestershire County Council v Unison [2006] IRLR 810 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that a tribunal was entitled to make the maximum protective award in respect of a group of employees who had been dismissed and offered new terms without consultation with the relevant unions.
In Stewart v Moray Council [2006] IRLR 592 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that where multiple pre-existing agreements collectively cover all employees, each must be approved by the employees covered by that particular agreement and detail how the employees will be informed and consulted.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to information and consultation.