Woolies and Ethel Austin workers Court of Appeal hearing timetabled

-

shutterstock_21877921

Shopworkers trade union leader John Hannett has welcomed the timetabling of a Court of Appeal hearing in which the Government is trying to stop former employees of Woolworth’s and Ethel Austin from receiving justice. It will be on 21 or 22 January 2014.

John Hannett – Usdaw General Secretary says: “We remain disappointed that the Government is going to great lengths to deny these low-paid workers justice and a modest compensation payment for not being properly consulted on their redundancy.

“The Government should be encouraging administrators to focus on keeping businesses open, not supporting their failure to properly consult with workers, as required under the law.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

“The Government’s failure to attend the original Employment Appeal Tribunal, for which they have rightly apologised, and the lodging of this appeal means that not only is the payment of compensation further delayed, but the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill.”

“The fact that Court of Appeal hearings can be televised may enable taxpayers to see the full embarrassment of the Government and how their money is being thrown at this sorry cause.”

Background

In January 2012 Usdaw won compensation worth tens of millions of pounds for 25,000 former employees of both companies, but around 1,200 former employees of Ethel Austin and 3,200 former employees of Woolworths were denied compensation because they worked in stores with fewer than 20 staff.

The decision to deny compensation to staff who worked in smaller shops was based on the interpretation of UK law, and it was greeted with outrage by former employees, customers, politicians and sections of the media. Usdaw fought the clear injustice of this decision.

Against this background, in May 2013 Usdaw won a landmark legal case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that should have seen those excluded staff back into the compensation scheme. This ruling not only meant that those excluded staff at Woolworths and Ethel Austin would have been entitled to the compensation received by employees from bigger stores, but that the law would be changed permanently in the same circumstances for all future workers from small stores.

Despite the Government’s failure to attend the EAT hearing they sought leave to appeal the decision, which was granted on 10 September 2013. The Government apologised to the EAT for their non-attendance at the original hearing and the Government were ordered to pay Usdaw’s full costs for the forthcoming appeal.

History

An employer proposing to make collective redundancies is required to consult in advance with representatives of the affected employees and the consultation must be completed before any notices of dismissal are issued. A complaint of failure to consult may be made to an employment tribunal and if upheld, the tribunal can make a Protective Award. Before this ruling the interpretation of UK law was that the obligation to consult was limited to situations where 20 or more employees are to be made redundant at one establishment within a 90-day period. In the Ethel Austin and Woolworths cases, each store or workplace was regarded as a separate ‘establishment’.

Between 10 February 2010 and 11 April 2010, administrators MCR closed Ethel Austin’s Head Office and Distribution Centre in Knowsley and 186 stores located throughout the country. In November 2011, Usdaw won a Protective Award for its members after an Employment Tribunal found that MCR had failed in its statutory duty to consult with Usdaw before making the redundancies. The Tribunal limited the award, which was worth eight weeks pay, to workplaces where 20 or more redundancies were made. As a result, only staff who worked at the company’s Head Office and Distribution Centre and one store in Edgware, London actually received the award.

Woolworths went into administration on 27 November 2008 and by early January 2009 the administrators Deloitte had closed all of Woolworths stores, offices and distribution centres and made nearly 30,000 people redundant. In January 2012, Usdaw won a Protective Award for over 24,000 former employees of Woolworths after an Employment Tribunal found that Deloitte had failed in its statutory duty to consult with Usdaw before making the redundancies. Once again the award, worth eight weeks pay, was limited to workplaces where 20 or more redundancies were made. As a result, around 3,200 employees who worked in 180 of Woolworths 814 stores were denied compensation.

Usdaw successfully appealed the decision of both Employment Tribunals to limit the awards to workplaces where 20 or more redundancies were made and the two cases were subsequently combined as they concern the same point of law. BIS did not attend or give evidence to the appeal, even though they were named as correspondents along with the administrators. Only after the appeal ruling was announced did BIS engage and they decided to appeal the appeal ruling. The transcript of proceedings, judgment and directions hearing can be found at: bit.ly/1eICOgd

Latest news

Personalising the Benefits Experience: Why Employees Need More Than Just Information

This article explores how organisations can move beyond passive, one-size-fits-all communication to deliver relevant, timely, and simplified benefits experiences that reflect employee needs and life stages.

Grant Wyatt: When the love dies – when staying is riskier than quitting

When people fall out of love with their employer, or feel their employer has fallen out of love with them, what follows is rarely a clean exit.

£30bn pension savings window opens for employers ahead of 2029 reforms

UK employers could unlock billions in National Insurance savings by expanding pension salary sacrifice schemes before new limits take effect in 2029.

Expat jobs ‘fail early as costs hit $79,000 per worker’

International assignments are ending early due to family strain, isolation and poor preparation, as rising costs increase pressure on employers.
- Advertisement -

The Great Employer Divide: What the evidence shows about employers that back parents and carers — and those that don’t

Understand the growing divide between organisations that effectively support working parents and carers — and those that don’t. This session shows how to turn employee experience data into a clear business case, linking care-related pressures to performance, retention and workforce stability.

Scott Mills exit puts spotlight on risk of ‘news vacuum’ in high-profile dismissals

Sudden departure of a long-serving BBC presenter raises questions about how employers manage high-profile dismissals and limit speculation.

Must read

James Tamm: ‘Fire and Rehire’ – What do employers need to know?

"With three-quarters of the UK public against firing and rehiring and unions calling for a ban, businesses considering this strategy should proceed with caution."

Rebecca Hughes: What happens when employees work remotely abroad without consent?

In an increasingly flexible world of work, the distinction between home and workplace has become blurred and can often present significant challenges for employers.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you