All change on collective redundancy: the new meaning of establishment

Every now and then, a case comes along that shatters perceived wisdom and established practice. The Woolworths case (as it has become known) is one of those cases.

Up until this point, an employer embarking on a collective redundancy exercise could be fairly confident that the consultation obligations were triggered only if it proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees ‘at one establishment’ within a 90-day period. For multiple site businesses, this threshold was usually applied to each place of work to give some flexibility before hitting this consultation obligation threshold.

Breaking new ground, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has now ruled that this approach is wrong. According to the EAT, the only way to deliver the core objectives of protection of dismissed workers is to construe ‘establishment’ as meaning the retail business of each employer – that is, assessing the business as a whole rather than on a site-by-site basis (USDAW v Ethel Austin [in administration])…

If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Allen & Overy briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.

Briefings from Allen & Overy

  • ITC reaffirms its power to bar digital file transfers

    The ITC has reaffirmed its power to ban electronic transmissions from the US where those transmissions infringe an intellectual property right or are otherwise based on an unfair trade practice.

  • Changes to French takeover rules

    A new French law, the ‘Law to recapture the real economy’ (‘Loi visant à reconquérir l’économie réelle’ or ‘Loi Florange’), was made on 1 April 2014.

View more briefings from Allen & Overy

Analysis from The Lawyer

View more analysis from The Lawyer


One Bishops Square
E1 6AD

Turnover (£m): 1,189.00
No. of Lawyers: 2,304
No. of Lawyers (Asia Pacific): 357
Offices (Asia Pacific): 10