Commission v UK [1994] ICR 664
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-07 07:13:28 UTC
This case established that EC law required employees to consult with non-union form of representatives where no traditional union structure was in place.
UK law had said that there was only a duty to consult on redundancies with reps from a trade union that the employer recognised.
This contradicted an EC directive.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
GEC v MSF
The 90 day consultation period begins for redundancies when adequate information has been given to enable meaningful talks and consultation to start, under (forerunner to) TULRCA. In this case EAT he...
MSF v Refuge Assurance
Two life assurance companies were due to merge, which could have meant possible redundancies. Under s.188 the employer only has to consult when it is proposing to make redundancies, whereas under dir...
Middlesborough BC v TGWU
Defendant told the Union that it planned to make 150 employees redundant in over 90 days time, so as to allow for the consultation period under s.188. However it then issued redundancy notices the ne...
Williams v Compare Maxam
Plaintiffs were dismissed when a Defendant decided to cut labour costs to keep the business viable. Team leaders were asked to decide who to retain in the interests of the business (no criteria - jus...
Griffin v South West Water
Held that a privatised water company was a state emanation because it still carried out certain functions under the control of the state, which was important, because a directive on collective redund...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.