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.
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.
In Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that a provision in a collective agreement saying there would be no compulsory redundancies was no more than an aspirational statement and could not be incorporated into individual contracts of employment.
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.
In Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper and others [2004] IRLR 4 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal did not err in finding that enhanced redundancy terms over and above what was paid to the applicants on their dismissal, which formed part of their contracts of employment with their previous employer, BT, and to which they were entitled by virtue of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981, had not been removed by custom or practice.