-
- Date:
- 14 April 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB and another [2008] IRLR 187, the EAT refused to strike out a claim alleging breach of consultation duties arising pursuant to the TUPE Regulations 2006.
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Date:
- 27 February 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
-
- Date:
- 25 February 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (in administration) EAT/0350/07, the EAT held that the starting point for determining a protective award is 90 days' pay, even where fewer than 100 redundancies are involved and the minimum consultation period is 30 days.
-
- Date:
- 3 January 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held that industrial action by a trade union in Sweden to prevent a Latvian company from paying low wages to workers posted from Latvia could not be justified.
-
- Date:
- 12 December 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The High Court has held that an employer could deduct only 1/260th of salary from employees' pay in respect of a one-day strike, and not 1/228th, which discounted paid holiday.
-
- Date:
- 24 November 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In UK Coal Mining Ltd v (1) National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) (2) The British Association of Colliery Management EAT/0397/06 & EAT/0141/07, the EAT held that the duty to consult about ways of "avoiding" redundancies inevitably involves consultation about the reasons behind the proposed dismissals and, contrary to previous authority, is not limited to consultation about how the redundancies are to be effected.
-
- Date:
- 17 October 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA Case C-411/05, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given its judgment that the Equal Treatment Directive (2000/78/EC) does not preclude a Spanish law permitting clauses in collective agreements that allow employees to be compulsorily retired when they reach a specified age.
-
- Date:
- 15 October 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Where the Central Arbitration Committee has found an employer to be in breach of certain obligations under the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, the EAT may order the employer to pay a financial penalty to the secretary of state. In the first case to arise on this point, Amicus v MacMillan Publishers Ltd EAT/0185/07, the EAT ordered the employer to pay £55,000 in respect of a "very grave" breach.
-
- Date:
- 4 September 2007
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Optare Group Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union EAT/0143/07 the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a tribunal was right to hold that voluntary redundancies counted towards the total number of proposed redundancy dismissals at an establishment, which in this case was sufficient to trigger the statutory collective consultation requirements.