header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 February 2015 / Jessica Corsi
Categories: Opinion , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

In it together?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Employers can breathe a collective sigh of relief after the Advocate-General opinion on Woolworths, says Jessica Corsi

The Advocate-General has now given his opinion on a question which has been hotly debated among employment lawyers for a number of years: whether the UK is allowed to limit the obligation to consult with employee representatives about proposed redundancies to cases where the proposed redundancies (20 or more in a 90 day period) are at one establishment, or instead whether redundancies across all establishments count when determining whether the relevant threshold has been reached? 

The Advocate-General concluded that UK law does comply with the Collective Redundancies Directive (the "Directive") and that the UK is allowed to limit collective redundancy consultation obligations to cases where the proposed redundancies are at the same establishment. What he didn’t determine is what an “establishment” is, and this may mean that the Advocate-General’s opinion is not all good news for employers. 

Background

The issue came to the fore most recently in the case of USDAW v Ethel Austin and another (the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll