header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

In it together?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
17 February 2015 / Jessica Corsi
Categories: Opinion , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

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
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll