When it comes to collective redundancies the “establishment” wins, says John McMullen
As it is drafted, the obligation to inform and consult under s 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is engaged when 20 or more redundancies are proposed “at one establishment” within a period of 90 days or less. The obligation seeks to implement the EU Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59. The question is whether the obligation applies where there are 20 or more redundancies across the entire business, or only when the threshold is met in a smaller business unit within the organisation. The latter would mean that workers in smaller business units may lose out if their employer fails to inform and consult.
Rockfon, Botzen & Athinaiki Chartopoiia
In Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark [1985] ECR 519, [1986] 2 CMLR 50, the European Court held that “establishment” for the purposes of the Collective Redundancies Directive must be understood as designating the unit to which the workers made redundant are “assigned to carry out their duties”. The court applied the test in Botzen and others v Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij
