header-logo header-logo

01 May 2015
Issue: 7651 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Woolworths cheers employers

Employers are breathing a sigh of relief following the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in the “Woolworths case” on the duty to consult over redundancies.

The ECJ ruled on the meaning of “establishment” in the context of redundancies consultation this week, in USDAW & Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd & Ethel Austin Limited (in administration) (aka the Woolworths case) (C-80/14).

Sarah Rushton, employment partner at Moon Beever, says: “The ECJ has confirmed that it is the entity to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties that constitutes the ‘establishment’, for the purposes of determining whether collective consultation requirements are triggered. 

“It is now for the Court of Appeal to establish whether individual stores can be classified as separate ‘establishments’. If they are and fewer than 20 redundancies were made at each store, then the collective consultation requirements will not be triggered.”

Rushton said the decision took the law back to the “pre ‘Woolworths’ position” and would “come as a huge relief to employers and the government alike. 

“The collective consultation requirements are incredibly unpopular with businesses and are said to run contrary to the ‘rescue’ culture when dealing with businesses that are on the verge of insolvency, because of the additional administrative and financial burdens they place on companies at the time they can least afford it. Whilst the decision is undoubtedly going to be welcomed by employers, the issue of collective consultation still remains a difficult one for businesses and one which is easy to get wrong.”

Welcoming the decision, Beverley Sunderland, managing director of Crossland Employment Solicitors, said: “Obliging employers to count redundancies across the whole company—when deciding if there are 20 or more in a 90 day period—was not only an administrative nightmare, but it also deprived employees of the opportunity to talk at local level about changes which could potentially affect them.

“What would have been helpful is more of a steer from the ECJ as to what is meant by one ‘establishment’ so employers do not inadvertently consider workplaces separately. A general steer is that if they are stand–alone workplaces, with their own accounting and management and cost centres and the employees are assigned to work there, it is likely to be a separate establishment. But it does pay to look carefully at the structure.” 

 

Issue: 7651 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Harper James—Lottie Hugo

Harper James—Lottie Hugo

Commercial law firm announces appointment of corporate partner

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joins corporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

NEWS
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 
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
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
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’
back-to-top-scroll