Redundancy
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 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 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.
Zoe Balmforth and Joe Glavina of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to know to avoid tribunals.
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.
Karen Smith and Sophy Robinson of 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 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 Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that a provision in a collective agreement saying there would be no compulsory redundancies was no more than an aspirational statement and could not be incorporated into individual contracts of employment.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy.