The Woolworths case: a landmark EAT decision on collective redundancies
On 31 May 2013, USDAW (the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers) and its lawyers published two press releases announcing that they had won a landmark legal case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that will result in more than 3,000 ex-Woolworths’ staff receiving compensation (in the form of ‘protective awards’) for failure to collectively consult with them prior to their redundancies in 2008. The appeal was against the employment tribunal’s finding that each Woolworths’ store was a separate establishment and, as such, the duty to collectively consult was not triggered in respect of those stores employing less than 20 staff.
The EAT’s written reasons are now awaited. However, from reports so far, this decision is a significant change to the current law. The EAT has indicated that the words ‘at one establishment’ should be totally excised from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) so that, once it is proposed that 20 or more employees in a single business are to be made redundant, their location is entirely irrelevant. The obligation to collectively consult with all affected employees will be triggered regardless…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
A misrepresentation is a statement that induces entry into a contract and that turns out to be false.
Marshalling is an equitable remedy for achieving fairness between two or more secured creditors of the same debtor.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.
New EU rules and lawyers’ increased comfort with digital formats are sparking a sea-change in the way law firms manage their documents