The duty to consult appropriate representatives where 20 or more redundancies are proposed at one establishment. UK Coal Mining Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area); Junk v Kuhnel.
Protective award; collective consultation; s.189 TULRCA 1992. The protective award is a sanction for the employer's breach of the s.188 obligations, not compensation for loss suffered by the employees in consequence of the breach [45(1)]; the focus is the seriousness of the employer's default [45(2)]. Where there has been no consultation at all the proper approach is to start at the maximum 90 days and reduce only for mitigating factors [45(5)]. The word 'punitive' at [27] is a quotation from Association of Patternmakers v Kirvin Ltd [1978] IRLR 318 and should not be attributed to Peter Gibson LJ.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Collective redundancies; Directive 98/59/EC; the consultation and notification obligations must be complied with before any individual notices of dismissal are issued. A 'collective redundancy' takes place at the point notice to terminate is given, not when employment ends on expiry of the notice period. Foundational CJEU authority on the timing of the consultation trigger. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Collective consultation; s.188 TULR(C)A; the duty to consult on the reasons for proposed dismissals extends to consultation on the closure decision itself where closure and dismissal are inextricably linked. The EAT rejected the argument that an employer can deliberate on closure first and consult on dismissals only after the decision is made. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Collective consultation; s.188 TULR(C)A; 'proposing to dismiss' is a continuous, forward-looking concept. Closure of the business as a fixed, clear, albeit provisional intention, short of a discrete dismissal proposal, is sufficient to trigger the duty. Three claimants dismissed on the first day of administration were entitled to protective awards of 90 days' pay where the administrators' contemporaneous report showed no formal offers had been received and sale of the business was not realistically achievable. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
“That indicates that he was not looking at what was being proposed but rather on whether or not there was a fixed certain proposal at a point in time. … the Judge's focus appeared to be whether there was a fixed clear intention which amounted to a proposal to make collective redundancies. That, in my judgment, is a misstatement of the relevant legal principles.”Judge Tucker, at [56]
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Redundancy; consultation; consultation must be meaningful; using a 'pre-determined' matrix without input is unfair. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.