The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the words "at one establishment" should be deleted from s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Amanda Steadman is a professional support lawyer, and Joe Beeston, Laura Garner, Helen Samuel and Dinu Suntook are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
This tribunal decision provides another reminder to employers after Unison v London Borough of Barnet and another ET/3302128/2012 of the information on agency workers that they are required to produce during redundancy consultation.
This tribunal decision provides a stark reminder to employers of the information on agency workers that they have been required to produce during redundancy and TUPE consultations since amendments to legislation made on 1 October 2011.
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 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.