Glendinning v Mivan (No 1) Ltd (In Administr... [2014] NIIT 470_14IT (10 December 2014)

Glendinning v Mivan (No 1) Ltd (In Administr... [2014] NIIT 470_14IT (10 December 2014)

The respondent failed to carry out any collective consultation as required by Article 216 ERO prior to making redundancy dismissals affecting more than 20 employees. No special circumstances or reasonably practicable defence was established. Therefore, the claimant's complaint is well-founded and a protective award for 90 days is appropriate for all affected employees dismissed or to be dismissed as redundant from 14 January 2014 onwards.

Citation
[2014] NIIT 470_14IT
Parties
Claimant: William Glendinning; Respondent: Mivan (No 1) Ltd (In Administration)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Employment Rights (protective Award) / Final Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claim upheld; protective award granted.
Legal Topics
Collective Redundancy, Protective Award, Collective Consultation, Employment Rights (northern Ireland) Order 1996, Dismissal by Reason of Redundancy
Employment Law Collective Redundancy Protective Award Collective Consultation Employment Rights (northern Ireland) Order 1996 Dismissal by Reason of Redundancy

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Glendinning

Claimant

Mivan (No 1) Ltd (In Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Employment Rights (protective Award) / Final Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to comply with collective consultation obligations under Article 216 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 prior to making redundancy dismissals.
  2. 2 Whether any 'special circumstances' or 'reasonably practicable' defence under Article 217(6) ERO was established by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether a protective award should be made and its scope.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to carry out any collective consultation as required by Article 216 ERO prior to making redundancy dismissals affecting more than 20 employees. No special circumstances or reasonably practicable defence was established. Therefore, the claimant's complaint is well-founded and a protective award for 90 days is appropriate for all affected employees dismissed or to be dismissed as redundant from 14 January 2014 onwards.

Court Disposition

Claim upheld; protective award granted.

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay remuneration for the protected period of 90 days to all specified employees dismissed or to be dismissed as redundant from 14 January 2014 onwards.
  • The respondent must provide required employee information to the Department for Social Development within 10 days.