The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that, when deciding whether or not collective redundancy consultation obligations are triggered, the number of proposed redundancies should be measured in the entity to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties, rather than across the whole organisation.
David Malamatenios is a partner, Linda Quinn and Krishna Santra senior associates and Melissa Powys-Rodrigues and Dominic Speedie associates at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
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.
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 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.