Topics

Collective employee relations

New and updated

  • Type:
    FAQs

    In a collective redundancy situation, what should the workforce be consulted about?

  • Type:
    FAQs

    What should an employer do if it cannot accept proposals made by trade union or employee representatives during a collective redundancy procedure?

  • Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.

  • Date:
    13 January 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE: Incorrect information reflecting mistaken belief about legal position did not breach Regulations

    In Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union [2009] EWCA Civ 1045 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employer must inform representatives of employees who may be affected by a TUPE transfer of its considered and genuine view as to the legal implications of the proposed transfer. However, reg.13(2)(b) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 does not impose strict liability on the employer as to the accuracy of that information. Therefore the employer will not be in breach if the information that it gives reflects a genuine but mistaken belief as to the legal implications.

  • Date:
    23 November 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Redundancy: ECJ rules on consultation provisions in Collective Redundancies Directive

    In Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK Ry and others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy [2009] IRLR 944 ECJ, the ECJ held that an employer's duty under the Collective Redundancies Directive to consult workers' representatives about the possibility of redundancies arises when strategic decisions or changes in activities make the employer contemplate or plan for collective redundancies.

  • Date:
    8 September 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Industrial action: Gate Gourmet employees were fairly dismissed

    In Sehmi v Gate Gourmet London Ltd; Sandhu and others v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT/0264/08 & EAT/0265/08, the EAT held that, while the withdrawal by an employee of his or her labour will not necessarily justify dismissal, in a situation where large numbers of employees deliberately absent themselves from work in a manner that is liable to do serious damage to the employer's business, dismissal of those taking part in the action will be reasonable, even where the absence is not prolonged.

  • Date:
    7 August 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Age discrimination: Length-of-service criterion as part of redundancy selection matrix does not of itself amount to age discrimination

    In Rolls-Royce plc v Unite [2009] EWCA Civ 387 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a redundancy selection matrix set out in a 2003 collective agreement was not automatically rendered unlawful following the implementation of the age discrimination legislation in 2006.

  • Type:
    Quick reference

    TUPE - employee liability information

    A table setting out the employee liability information that the transferor is required to notify the transferee in a TUPE transfer.

  • Date:
    25 March 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE: Duty to consult ends with transfer

    In Amicus and another v City Building (Glasgow) LLP and others [2009] IRLR 253 EAT, the EAT held that, after a transfer, the transferee employer is not obliged to consult with representatives of the transferred employees in respect of the measures that it proposes to take.

  • Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE update

    Twenty-eight years after its birth, TUPE still raises thorny questions. Its complexity is evidenced by the number of groundbreaking tribunal cases which have come to the fore recently, many of which could have far-reaching ramifications at a time of economic instability, writes Lesley Murphy.