Advertisement

April 21, 2014

Change to UK Collective Redundancy Consultation Regime Now Confirmed

The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) has now published its judgment in litigation that resulted from the 2008 closure of Woolworths.  It confirms initial reports of a significant change to the law on UK collective redundancy consultation.

Background

When a UK employer proposes to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees, within a period of 90 days or less, it is required to collectively consult representatives of those affected, prior to implementing its proposal.  Failure to do so can lead to the employer being required to pay up to 90 days’ pay to each affected employee (a Protective Award).

This obligation arises out of the European Collective Redundancies Directive (the Directive).  In implementing the Directive, the UK Government stipulated that the obligation would only be triggered if the proposed redundancies involved 20 or more employees who all worked "at one establishment” within the employer’s organisation.  UK employers have therefore relied on this for many years as a means of avoiding the obligation to collectively consult when redundancies are proposed across different locations or are otherwise proposed at different “establishments”.

What Has Changed?

The EAT has now held that the words “at one establishment” should be deleted from UK legislation.  Why?  Because the stated purpose of the Directive is to provide greater protection for workers facing a collective redundancy situation and, in the view of the EAT, without this deletion, UK legislation provides less protection than the Directive requires. 

What Does This Mean for UK Employers?

Employers wishing to avoid liability for a Protective Award should now collectively consult when they are proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant, anywhere in their UK business, within a period of 90 days or less.

Employers will no longer be able to “slice and dice” their UK business into different establishments in order lawfully to avoid the obligation to collectively consult about proposed redundancies.

This marks a significant change to UK collective redundancy practice.

Large employers will be particularly affected, as the obligation to collectively consult will now be triggered even when headcount reductions are proposed independently, by unrelated business units, located across multiple sites.  Employers will encounter an inevitable increase in the administrative burden they have to shoulder, not only because of a rise in the number of collective consultation exercises required, but also because of the degree of organisation and communication that will in future be necessary to keep track of, and aggregate, disparate redundancy proposals.

Employers should not despair however.  The collective redundancy regime remains otherwise unchanged and, whilst employers will now find themselves required to collectively consult more frequently, this judgment does not require collective consultation to take placeen masse at one geographic location.  Collective consultation exercises can still take place at different establishments if that is a more commercially sensible option.  

It is worth noting that this change will apply to redundancies that have already been proposed and to those that are on-going.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

James Noble, Employment Law Attorney with McDermott Will & Emery law firm
Associate

James Noble is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP, based in its London office.  His practice covers all areas of contentious and non-contentious employment law.

James advises employers on a wide range of day-to-day employment matters, from initial appointment and the preparation of contracts through to handling termination and the negotiation of compromise agreements. James deals with all manner of HR issues, including the managing of sickness absence, disciplinary and grievance matters, and performance and redundancy issues.

James has...

+44 20 7577 3425

About the Author

Partner

Sharon Tan is a partner in the firm of McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP, based in its London office.  Her practice focuses on all aspects of contentious and non-contentious employment law.

Sharon has extensive litigation experience.  She frequently handles matters such as complex discrimination, whistleblowing and unfair dismissal claims in the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.  She also has significant experience of handling High Court litigation, including injunctions and contractual disputes.

Sharon regularly...

+44 20 7577 3488

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.