- Counting to 20—the Court of Justice judgment in UQ v Marclean Technologies SLU
- What was the background?
- What did the Court of Justice decide?
- Can domestic UK legislation (TULR(C)A 1992, s 188) be interpreted in a way which is consistent with this judgment?
- Since 1 January 2021, what, if anything, is the effect of this judgment for private sector employers/employees (including consideration of Francovich claims)?
- Is the position since 1 January 2021 different for public sector employers/employees (as compared to the private sector)?
- What are the practical implications of this judgment for employers and their redundancy processes (including the types of claim that they could potentially face)?
- Case details
Employment analysis: The Court of Justice has considered when the obligation for consultation on proposed redundancies, referrable to the number of proposed redundancies, is triggered under the Collective Redundancies Directive. The critical question before the court was whether the 90 days window captured redundancies which occurred before the dismissal in question. In essence, could the 20 or more proposed redundancies include redundancies, which were less than 20, which occurred within the 90 days before the further redundancies in issue. The court held that they could. This decision has important implications for the interpretation of domestic law, section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992), and the obligations of consultation in domestic law. Written by David Reade QC and Daniel Northall of Littleton Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial