The term ‘establishment’ for the purpose of consultation on contemplated redundancies meant the work unit to which the relevant workers were assigned: ‘The term ‘establishment’ appearing in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive (75/129/EEC) must therefore be interpreted as designating, depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an ‘establishment’, for the unit in question to be endowed with a management which can independently effect collective redundancies.
That interpretation is supported by the fact that the Commission’s initial proposal for a Directive uses the term ‘undertaking’ and that that term was defined in the last sub-paragraph of Article 1(1) of the proposal as ‘local employment unit’. It appears, however, that the Council decided to replace the term ‘undertaking’ by the term ‘establishment’, which meant that the definition originally contained in the proposal and considered to be superfluous was deleted.
The answer to the second part of the preliminary question must therefore be that the term ‘establishment’ appearing in Article 1(1)(a) . . must be understood as meaning, depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an ‘establishment’ for the unit in question to be endowed with a management which can independently effect collective redundancies.’
Citations:
Times 17-Jan-1996, C-449/93, [1995] EUECJ C-449/93, [1996] IRLR 168, [1996] ICR 673, [1996] CEC 224, [1995] ECR I-4291
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – MSF v Refuge Assurance Plc, United Friendly Insurance EAT 15-Feb-2002
EAT The EAT considered the employer’s duties to consult on making redundancies. The ET had found that company had satisfied the requirements. The Union argued that the duty to consult arose as soon as . .
Cited – Brookes and 334 Others v Borough Care Services and CLS Care Services Ltd EAT 4-Aug-1998
Where a transfer of a business had been arranged by way of a transfer of shares rather than of the business and particularly in order to avoid the Regulations, the transfer of shares took effect as a transfer of the undertaking and so the . .
Cited – Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v L Panagiotidis and Others, third party: Geniki Sinomospondia Ergaton Elladas (GSEE) ECJ 15-Feb-2007
ECJ Free Movement of Persons – Collective redundancies – Council Directive 98/59/EC Article 1(1)(a) – Termination of the establishment’s activities of the employer’s own volition – Concept of ‘establishment’.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, European
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88831