USDAW v WW Realisation 1 Ltd [2012] [2012] EW Misc 2 (ET) (19 January 2012)

USDAW v WW Realisation 1 Ltd [2012] [2012] EW Misc 2 (ET) (19 January 2012)

The Tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to comply with the consultation requirements under section 188 of the 1992 Act, as the process was inadequate, did not allow for meaningful dialogue, and did not meet statutory obligations. The Tribunal held that each store constituted a separate establishment, so the duty to consult did not apply to stores with fewer than 20 employees. No special circumstances defence was made out. Protective awards were therefore ordered for eligible employees, excluding those at small stores.

Citation
[1996] ICR 673
Parties
Claimant: USDAW; Claimant: Unite the Union; Claimant: Ms B Wilson; First Respondent: WW Realisation 1 Limited (in liquidation); Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Protective Award / Final Judgment After Full Merits Hearing
Outcome
Claims upheld. Protective awards granted.
Legal Topics
Collective Redundancy, Protective Award, Consultation Obligations, Trade Union Recognition, Employee Representation, Establishment Definition
Employment Law Insolvency Law Labour Law Collective Redundancy Protective Award Consultation Obligations Trade Union Recognition Employee Representation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

USDAW

Claimant

Unite the Union

Claimant

Ms B Wilson

Claimant

WW Realisation 1 Limited (in liquidation)

First Respondent

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Protective Award / Final Judgment After Full Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding consultation on collective redundancies
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances defence applied to excuse non-compliance
  3. 3 Whether the concept of 'establishment' excluded employees at stores with fewer than 20 employees from protection

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the First Respondent failed to comply with the consultation requirements under section 188 of the 1992 Act, as the process was inadequate, did not allow for meaningful dialogue, and did not meet statutory obligations. The Tribunal held that each store constituted a separate establishment, so the duty to consult did not apply to stores with fewer than 20 employees. No special circumstances defence was made out. Protective awards were therefore ordered for eligible employees, excluding those at small stores.

Court Disposition

Claims upheld. Protective awards granted.

Orders

  • First Respondent to pay remuneration for a protected period of sixty days beginning 27 December 2008 to eligible employees dismissed as redundant on or after that date, excluding those at stores with fewer than 20 employees.
  • Protective awards apply to specified categories of employees as set out in the judgment.