Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2015] All ER (D) 183 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2015] UKSC 63
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Neuberger P, Lady Hale DP, Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath SCJJ

Representation John Cavanagh QC and Sir Daniel Bethlehem KCMG QC (instructed by Nabarro LLP) for the appellant.
  N did not appear and was not represented.
  Michael Beloff QC and Sarah Wilkinson (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the intervening party.
Judgment Dates: 21 October 2015

Catchwords

Redundancy - Employer's duty to consult appropriate trade union - Failure to consult union - Employer being sovereign state (United States of America) in United Kingdom - Employer operating military base in England and deciding to cease operations - Employee being made redundant - Employee seeking protective award on ground employer failing to consult - Whether collective redundancy provisions in domestic legislation should be construed to same effect as decision of Court of Justice of the European Union - Whether domestic legislation should be given interpretation conforming to CJEU as not applying to employment by public administrative establishment - Whether secondary legislation amending relevant primary legislation being ultra vires - Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995, - .

The Case

Redundancy Employer's duty to consult appropriate trade union. The respondent employee had successfully issued proceedings in the United Kingdom seeking a protective award after she had been made redundant the day after the closure of the appellant United States of America's military base in the UK. The Supreme Court dismissed the USA's appeal, ruling, among other things, that amendments to the by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (), which required employee representatives to be designated for consultation purposes in all situations covered by the Act, were not ultra vires. left it open to member states to apply or introduce even more favourable laws, regulations or administrative provisions than those it required.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.