The administrators had adopted the contracts of certain employees, who now claimed that the protective awards should have priority to the expenses of the administration. Held: The payments did fall within paragraph 99(5) and do not have super-priority.Responsibility for protective awards on insolvency. Judges: Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Jacob Lord Justice Neuberger Citations: [2005] … Continue reading Krasner v McMath; in Re Huddersfield Fine Worsteds Limited: CA 12 Aug 2005
The employee was made redundant from working at a US watercraft repair base. She complained that on the base closing the appellant had failed to consult with her as employee representative. The appellant denied that obligation. After a reference to the ECJ, the court now considered a new issue. Judges: Moore-Bick, Rimer, Underhill LJJ Citations: … Continue reading The United States of America v Nolan: CA 4 Feb 2014
EAT REDUNDANCY – Collective consultation and information The evidence to support a conclusion that a trade union has been recognised by an employer for collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 must be clear. The Employment Judge erred in deciding that the Claimant … Continue reading Working Links (Employment) Ltd v Public and Commercial Services Union: EAT 12 Mar 2013
EAT REDUNDANCY – Collective consultation and informationCollective consultation in a redundancy situation. Meaning of ‘election’ and ‘elected’ in Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 sections 188 and 188A. In this case, the number of candidates precisely matched the number of available places for elected employee representatives. The employer treated them as ‘elected’. The … Continue reading Phillips v Xteria Communications Ltd: EAT 17 Jun 2011
EAT REDUNDANCY Collective Consultation and Information Protective Award Section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRA) – whether and to what extent special circumstances rendered it not reasonably practicable to comply – no error of law in the reasoning of the Tribunal – appeal on this ground dismissed. Section 189 TULRA – … Continue reading Shanahan Engineering Ltd v Unite: EAT 22 Feb 2010
The council sought to make redundancies because of its financial circumstances following re-organisation. The employees said the consultation procedure had been a sham. Held: Fair consultation involves giving the body consulted a fair and proper opportunity to understand fully the matters about which it is being consulted, and to express its views on those subjects, … Continue reading Middlesbrough Borough Council v TGWU Unison: EAT 4 May 2001
British Coal Corporation had decided to close 31 deep mine collieries. The court was asked as to just what consultation obligations fell on the employer under the 1946 Act. Held: The section did create an obligation to consult. Glidewell LJ, made obiter comments on the similar consultation duties under section 188 of the 1992 Act: … Continue reading Regina v British Coal Corporation and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Vardy and Others: QBD 1993
EAT REDUNDANCY: Collective consultation and information / Protective award An Employment Tribunal held that the USA was in breach of Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by failing to consult representatives of civilian employees at a US Army Base about the reasons for its closure and by failing to … Continue reading United States of America v Nolan: EAT 15 May 2009
The Respondent Trade Union, MSF presented a complaint under Section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that the Appellant, Pearl Assurance Plc, had failed to consult with the Union in circumstances to which Section 188 of the Act applied. [1997] UKEAT 1162 – 96 – 2602 Bailii Trade Union and … Continue reading Pearl Assurance Plc v Manufacturing Science and Finance: EAT 26 Feb 1997
The company made redundancies but failed to carry out any effective or honest consultation. The tribunal awarded the maximum 90 days protective order. The company appealed saying that it had given the employees greater notice than was strictly due. Held: The purpose of the order was punitive and therefore was not affected by the actual … Continue reading Susie Radin Ltd v GMB and others: CA 20 Feb 2004
Former employees had obtained a protective award against the company for failing to consult on the impending redundancies and submitted proofs of debt to the liquidator who sought guidance from the court. The judge had held that since the Act provided only one remedy, the protective awards were not provable. Held: The appeal was allowed. … Continue reading Haine v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Another; Day v Haine: CA 11 Jun 2008
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
