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.
News from Allen & Overy
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Allen & Overy
Keeping track of the latest European developments, as well as domestic trends and changes, can be difficult — all the more so for multinational businesses.
For most HR practitioners and in-house counsel, keeping abreast of domestic legal developments can be challenging. For those with a multi-national remit, the task is huge.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Why has Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) decided to walk away from the Singapore qualifying foreign law practice (QFLP) scheme?
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.