header-logo header-logo

Trigger movements

20 September 2013 / John McMullen
Issue: 7576 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
istock_000001422490medium

John McMullen investigates the changing landscape of collective redundancy law

As it is currently drafted, the obligation to inform and consult under s 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A) is engaged when 20 or more redundancies are proposed “at one establishment” within a period of 90 days or less. The question is whether this threshold applies to 20 or more redundancies across the entire business, or within a smaller unit within the business, for the obligation to be triggered. If it is the latter, workers in those smaller business units may lose out on information and consultation rights.

EU law

To understand this provision it is necessary to outline the options available to member states when implementing the Collective Redundancies Directive (98/59/EC). Under Art 1(1)(a) of the Directive, member states can chose from one of two definitions of “collective redundancy”. These are as follows.

Option one

The dismissal, over a period of at least 30 days of:

  • 10 workers in an establishment with 21 to 99 workers;
  • 10%
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

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
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
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
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
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'
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
back-to-top-scroll