ECJ clarifies definition of ‘establishment’ for collective redundancies

Estimated reading time 3 minutes

The long awaited decision regarding the former UK retailers Woolworths and Ethel Austin has been handed down by the ECJ. The ECJ decided that each store could be a separate ‘establishment’.

Background:

There is a legal requirement to collectively consult on potential redundancies where more than 20 employees are ‘at risk’ of redundancy within a 90 day period in one ‘establishment’. Woolworths and Ethel Austin had numerous stores at which less than 20 employees worked.  The administrative receivers for the companies decided that each store was a separate ‘establishment’ and as such there was no need to consult in those stores that had less than 20 employees. If this decision was incorrect then the companies would be liable to pay each affected employee a ‘protective award' of up to 90 days salary.  Thousands of employees were made redundant when these companies went into administration and 4500 employees worked in stores with less than 20 employees.

Commentary:

The ECJ stated that if a company has several ‘entities’/shops (like Woolworths did) then ‘establishment’ means ‘the entity to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties’. This is good news for large national employers and means (in the UK) that employers need only consult with employees in a particular “establishment” or entity within the company – in this case a particular store - if 20 or more employees in that entity are at risk of redundancy.  Each entity is to be considered separately. The case has been referred back to the UK’s Court of Appeal to determine if, based on the facts, each store was indeed a separate establishment.  The Advocate General has commented that, in the example of more than one store in a large shopping centre, the stores in that centre could be considered together as one ‘establishment’ and each case will turn on its facts.

Resources:

USDAW and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation), Ethel Austin Ltd and another (C-80/14), 30 April 2015 Advocate General’s decision

Further information

For further information or to discuss any of the issues raised, please email Emma Clark or David Widdowson or speak to them on +44 20 3051 5711 Disclaimer Content is for general information purposes only.  The information provided is not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain legal or other advice.  If you require assistance in relation to any issue please seek specific advice relevant to your particular circumstances.  In particular, no responsibility shall be accepted by the authors or by Abbiss Cadres LLP for any losses occasioned by reliance on any content appearing on or accessible from this article.  For further legal information see our legal page. Circular 230 disclosure To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this article (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Copying If you would like to copy or otherwise reproduce this article then you may do so provided that: (1) any such copy or reproduction is for your own personal use or if it is made available to any third party it is done so on a free of charge basis; and (2) the article is reproduced in full together with the contact details, disclaimer and any logos as they appear on each article.