-
- Date:
- 29 April 2005
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Date:
- 15 April 2005
- Type:
- Employment law cases
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.
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Date:
- 1 June 2004
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Susie Radin v GMB and others [2004] IRLR 400 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employment tribunal had not erred in making a protective award for the maximum period of 90 days in respect of the employers' failure to consult with the union over a proposal to close a factory and dismiss all employees as redundant, notwithstanding the tribunal's finding in relation to the employees' claims of unfair dismissal that, in those circumstances, consultation would have been futile.
-
- Date:
- 19 December 2003
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Dewhirst Group v GMB Trade Union, the EAT affirms that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered at the point at which a "proposal" to dismiss employees is made.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.
-
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.
-
- Date:
- 15 June 2002
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In MSF v Refuge Assurance plc and United Friendly Assurance, the EAT holds that the statutory duty under UK law to consult with employee representatives in relation to collective redundancies is triggered when there is an actual "proposal" to dismiss employees.
-
- Date:
- 1 August 2001
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Middlesbrough Borough Council v Transport and General Workers' Union and another, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's finding of fact that an employer failed to consult representatives of two trade unions that it recognised, in respect of more than 100 employees whom it was proposing to make redundant within 90 days, about ways of avoiding the dismissals.