R v British Coal, ex parte Vardy [1993] ICR 720
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-07 17:29:47 UTC
The court held that s.188 TULRCA meant that there had to be consultation on how the redundancy programme was to be carried out, but NOT on the reasons for the redundancy, or the conclusion that there would be one.
Also the protective award under s.189 is a private law right.
RELATED CASES
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...
Polkey v Dayton
Plaintiff was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy (no prior warning, etc.). Defendant argued that this was fair because it was of ‘urgent necessity’ to the business. HL held that the case had to b...
Blackpool & Fylde College v NATFHE
The Court of Appeal decided that when a union balloted their members over industrial action (sections 226A and 234A of TULR(C)A 1992) the union had to specify a category or name individuals or, by a...
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.