The claimant alleged that his selection for redundancy was unfair, the company having failed properly to consult its own employee consultation council and in having failed to disclose its scoring system. The company said that any such complaint could only be made by the representative with whom consultation should have taken place.
Held: The claimant had no standing to make an application personally: ‘there is no protection gap in the legislation which results from according the statutory language its obvious and natural meaning. I do not accept that a purposive approach produces a different result.’ and
‘I do not doubt that traditional trade unionists would view consultative arrangements such as the ones in the present case with suspicion and distaste. However, neither the statute nor its parent Directive made assumptions about the relative merits of independent trade unions and non-union representatives.’
Judges:
Potter P, Maurice Kay LJ, Wilson LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1304, [2008] ICR 410, [2008] IRLR 222
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 188, Council Directive 98/59/EC
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hollister v National Farmers Union (NFU) CA 1979
The correct approach for the Industrial Tribunal looking at a company re-organisation is to make a finding as to the advantages to the employers of a proposed re-organisation and whether it was reasonable for them to implement it by terminating . .
Cited – Mcloughlin v Jones and others CA 5-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Jones v Mid-Glamorgan County Council CA 13-May-1997
On being told he was to be dismissed, Mr Jones had taken early retirement. He made a claim in the County Court that his pension had been wrongly reduced, The court rejected his allegation that he had acted under duress. His subsequent claim of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.262112