Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Those responsible for employment decisions in firms and businesses with multiple office locations will have been relieved that the Advocate General recommended a reversal of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s interpretation of ‘one establishment’ in the Woolworths cases (USDAW v Ethel Austin Ltd (In administration) UKEAT/0547/12/kn IRL886) when his opinion was handed down on 5 February 2015. However, as the European Court of Justice is not obliged to follow the AG’s opinion, we still have some time to wait for further clarity on this issue.
Until the ECJ delivers its judgment, in the UK the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in USDAW v Ethel Austin Ltd technically remains good law and therefore it is safest to proceed in accordance with the principles established. Therefore, as the EAT found that the ‘one establishment’ wording in s188 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRA) should be disregarded, firms will still have to aggregate the total number of potential redundancies across all of their office or branch locations.
If this means that they are proposing to make 20 or more employees redundant within 90 days, then they will have triggered the obligation to collectively consult under TULRA.
In summary, this requires that appropriate employee representatives are elected and informed and consulted regarding the proposed redundancies. In addition, the Secretary of State must be notified and if there is a relevant Trade Union, they must also be consulted.
Lastly, minimum periods of consultation apply. For 100 or more redundancies, there must be at least 45 days consultation before the first redundancy dismissal happens and then 30 days consultation for less than 100 redundancies. This is all in addition to the usual requirements to ensure the decision to dismiss is reasonable.
In particular, any selection criteria applied must be fair and capable of objective justification and the individuals affected should have an opportunity to suggest alternatives to redundancy and look for alternative employment within the organisation. The process should, of course, conclude by offering a right to appeal.
If followed by the ECJ, the AG’s opinion suggests that the ‘one establishment’ wording in s188 is not inconsistent with the European Directive that defines collective redundancy (which is implemented by TULRA). In other words, the opinion confirms that establishment can mean the unit to which the workers are assigned to carry out their duties rather than the whole undertaking.
If the ECJ follows this, then the Court of Appeal should confirm that the EAT decision was wrong and reinstate the ‘one establishment’ wording in s188 TULRA. This will mean that, once again, employers facing the prospect of redundancies at several different sites and locations can assess whether they are part of the same establishment or not depending on the specific arrangements. It will remain possible that multiple sites should be considered as ‘one establishment’ in certain circumstances, but it will avoid employers automatically having to go through the process of aggregating the numbers at very separate units, which can be very difficult in reality.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234