In Vauxhall Motors Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union EAT/0657/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that where an employer commences consultation in compliance with the statutory requirements, but no redundancies take place until a much later date, no fresh compliance will be required if meaningful consultation has continued during the interim period.
In Sweetin v Coral Racing, the EAT holds that awards of compensation for a failure to inform and consult about staff transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations should be penal and not compensatory.
In Amicus v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd, the EAT holds that the tribunal was correct to find that consultation by an employer proposing to relocate 62 employees took place "in good time", despite the fact that the employer failed to consult the union until three weeks before the affected employees had to indicate their willingness to be relocated.
Joe Glavina and Emma Slark at Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.
In Amicus v GBS Tooling Ltd (in administration), the EAT holds that, under s.189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, to make a protective award against an employer in respect of breaches of s.188, an employment tribunal is entitled and obliged to assess the seriousness of the breach, taking into account its nature and any mitigating circumstances.
In Hardy v Tourism South East, the EAT holds that a proposal to redeploy 26 employees on the closure of a regional office amounted to a plan to dismiss 20 or more employees and fell within s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
In Junk v Kühnel, the ECJ holds that articles 2 to 4 of Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies must be construed as meaning that the event constituting "redundancy" is the declaration by the employer of its intention to terminate the employees' contracts of employment.
In Howard v (1) Millrise Ltd and another, the EAT holds that the correct interpretation of reg.10 (8A) of TUPE is that, if there is no trade union and no elected employee representatives, the employer is under a duty to inform and consult employees affected by the transfer of the undertaking.