Junk v Kuhnel: ECJ 27 Jan 2005

ECJ Social Policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Consultation with workers’ representatives – Notification to the competent public authority – Concept of ‘redundancy’ – Time at which redundancy takes effect.
The ECJ observed:
‘The case in which the employer ‘is contemplating’ collective redundancies and has drawn up a ‘project’ to that end corresponds to a situation in which no decision has yet been taken. By contrast, the notification to a worker that his or her contract of employment has been termi nated is the expression of a decision to sever the employment relationship, and the actual cessation of that relationship on the expiry of the period of notice is no more than the effect of that decision.
Thus, the terms used by the Community legislature indicate that the obligations to consult and to notify arise prior to any decision by the employer to terminate contracts of employment.
Finally, this interpretation is confirmed, in regard to the procedure for consultation of workers’ representatives, by the purpose of the Directive, as set out in Article 2(2), which is to avoid terminations of contracts of employment or to reduce the number of such terminations. The achievement of that purpose would be jeopardised if the consultation of workers’ representatives were to be sub sequent to the employer’s decisio
The answer to the first question must therefore be that Articles 2 to 4 of the Directive must be construed as meaning that the event constituting redundancy consists in the declaration by an employer of his intention to terminate the contract of employment’.


C-188/03, [2005] EUECJ C-188/03, [2005] IRLR 310, [2005] 1 CMLR 42




Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies 1 2 3 4



Cited by:

CitedUnison v Leicestershire County Council CA 29-Jun-2006
The council had dismissed all workers within a group of employees, and invited them to re-apply for their jobs. The council now appealed a protective award made on the basis that there had been inadequate consultation with the union.
Held: The . .
CitedUK Coal Mining Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) and Another EAT 27-Sep-2007
The employer appealed against a protective award made for failing to consult the union on prospective redundancies.
Held: The appeal failed. The duty to consult arose as soon as the redundancies were fixed as a clear, even if there had been . .
AppliedLeicestershire County Council v Unison EAT 2-Sep-2005
EAT Redundancy: Protective Award
Employment Tribunal correctly applied the judgment in Susie Radin v GMB [2004] ICR 893 in its approach to the calculation of a protective award for one group of workers, . .
CitedX v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another SC 12-Dec-2012
The appellant was disabled, had legal qualifications, and worked with the respondent as a volunteer. She had sought assistance under the Disability Discrimination Act, now the 2012 Act, saying that she counted as a worker. The tribunal and CA had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222060