Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm


06 March 2015  

Chris Tutton analyses the advocate general’s opinion in the Woolworths case

In 2013, an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision greatly increased the likelihood that redundancies across a business would trigger complex collective redundancy consultation obligations and, in doing so, created much uncertainty. In USDAW v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) (otherwise known as the Woolworths case), the EAT decided that European law required businesses to aggregate all redundancies across their business over a 90-day period when assessing whether the threshold of 20 redundancies was met for collective consultation purposes.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Case C-270/05 Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v Panagiotidis & ors [2007] ECR I-1499

    Case C-449/93 Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbundet I Danmark, acting for Nielsen & ors [1996] ECR I-04291

    Case C-80/14 USDAW and Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation), Ethel Austin Ltd and BIS (2015) unreported, 5 February, Advocate General’s Opinion, Advocate General Wahl