Case law update: Collective consultation and protective awards

In 2004, the Court of Appeal ruled that protective awards are penal in nature and that 90 days' pay should be awarded unless there are good reasons for awarding less. The EAT has recently confirmed that this 90-day approach to protective awards is also correct where smaller scale collective redundancies are proposed.

Collective consultation obligations are triggered for employers who propose to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at the same establishment over a period of 90 days or less. The employer should begin consultation ‘in good time’ and in any event at least 30 days in advance of the first dismissals, unless it proposes to dismiss 100 or more employees within 90 days, in which case the minimum consultation period is 90 days.

Where an employer fails to comply with its collective consultation redundancy obligations, an employment tribunal can make a protective award of up to 90 days’ actual pay for each employee dismissed as, or proposed to be dismissed as, redundant. In 2004, in the case of Susie Radin Ltd v GMB & Ors, the Court of Appeal made it clear that a protective award is penal, rather than compensatory, in nature and that 90 days' pay should be awarded unless there are good reasons for awarding less.

The EAT has now confirmed, in Evans and Others v Permacell Finesse Ltd that this approach applies equally to 30-day, as well as 90-day, consultation cases. The EAT rejected the employer’s argument that that there must be a link between the length of the consultation period and the amount of the protective award.

Comment

It is now clear that in any case where the collective consultation duty is triggered, but breached, employment tribunals should heed the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in the Susie Radin case. In deciding whether to make a protective award and, if so, for what period, employment tribunals should bear in mind the following:

  • The purpose of the award is to provide a sanction for an employer’s breach of its obligations set out in section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, not to compensate employees for loss which they have suffered in consequence of that breach;
  • Tribunals have a wide discretion to do what is just and equitable in all the circumstances but the focus should be on the seriousness of the employers default;
  • That default may vary in seriousness from the technical to a complete failure to provide any of the required information and to consult;
  • The deliberateness of the employer’s failure may be relevant, as may the availability to the employer of legal advice about its obligations under s.188; and
  • Assessment of the length of the protected period is a matter for the employment tribunal, but a proper approach in a case where there has been no consultation, is to start with the maximum period (90 days) and reduce it only if there are mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction to an extent the tribunal considers appropriate.

Because protective awards are made for each employee dismissed, or proposed to be dismissed as, redundant, and are made on the basis of an employee’s actual pay, it is clear that they can prove exceedingly expensive for employers. This case emphasises the importance of employers complying fully with their collective consultation obligations.


meta description:

hr and legal
pay
pay and conditions
employment tribunals
employment tribunal
unfair, constructive and wrongful dismissal
dismissal and resignation
dismiss
trade union
collective employment issues
redundancy law and redundancy advice
redundancy and reorganisation
collective consultation
trade
business issues
information and research
related links

Click here for CA judgment - Susie Radin Ltd v GMB and others

Click here for EAT judgment - Evans v Permacell Finesse Ltd

 

 

Welcome bot    logout | manage your profile

ABOUT EEFJOIN USCONTACT USPRESS ROOMCAREERS AT EEF
 > UK > what we do > HR & legal > briefings > employment law > Case law updates > Case law update: Collective consultation and protective awards
HR and legal

Contact us:

EEF, the manufacturers' organisation - Broadway House - Tothill Street - London SW1H 9NQ
t: 020 7222 7777 f: 020 7222 2782 e: enquiries@eef.org.uk VAT registration number applied for

EEF Limited is the organisation for manufacturing, engineering and technology-based businesses. It is an employers association regulated under Part II of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and a company limited by guarantee. EEF Limited is registered in England and Wales, registered no 05950172, and its registered office is Broadway House, Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NQ

privacy policy