Court of Appeal refers the ‘Woolworths’ case to the CJEU
In July 2013, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) controversially held that all the employees made redundant from two insolvent retail businesses were entitled to be collectively consulted once the overall number of redundancies had reached 20 or more, regardless of where the employees worked.
In reaching this decision, the EAT decided that the words ‘at one establishment’ were to be deleted from section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRA) in order to give effect to the EU Collective Redundancies Directive (No.98/59).
The secretary of state for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) was not represented at the EAT hearing and did not submit written representations. As the government would be responsible for the cost of the protective awards (as the retail businesses were insolvent), they elected to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. On 22 January 2014, the Court of Appeal heard the government’s appeal and decided to refer the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Addleshaw Goddard briefing.
News from Addleshaw Goddard
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Addleshaw Goddard
Addleshaw Goddard has released the 16 October 2014 issue of its Data Issues Roundup, which provides a weekly round-up of data issues.
This round-up includes costs and unreasonable refusals to engage in ADR and four recent cases considering the refusal by one party to engage in ADR.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
Could Slater & Gordon achieve its stated aim of becoming a top consumer brand by acquiring Pannone?