Topics

Information and consultation

New and updated

  • 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.

  • Date:
    29 August 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Collective redundancies: Employer company liable for post-liquidation protective award

    In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.

  • Date:
    14 April 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE: TUPE may apply to transfer of business to Israel

    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

    To which employers might the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006 apply?

  • Date:
    27 February 2008
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE case law update

    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

    Collective redundancies: Protective award starts at 90 days' pay

    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:
    24 November 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Redundancy: Employers must consult over reasons for closure

    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:
    15 October 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Information and consultation: Penalty imposed for serious breach

    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

    Redundancy: Volunteers for redundancy did not resign but were dismissed

    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.

  • Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    Judith Harris, professional support lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, outlines the latest legal rulings.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to information and consultation.