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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll