Usdaw is angry that the Government has been allowed to appeal the Woolies and Ethel Austin landmark legal decision

-

shutterstock_21877921

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has granted the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) the right to appeal against their landmark legal decision to include all Woolworths and Ethel Austin workers in a Protective Award award because of the administrator’s failure to properly consult on their redundancies.

Originally workers from stores employing less than 20 staff were excluded, but this was overturned after Usdaw took the case to the EAT.

Former employees from stores of less than 20 staff have now had their compensation payments further delayed and are left unsure as to whether they will ever receive anything, depending on the outcome.

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

 

Although the EAT gave permission to appeal, they have ordered that Usdaw’s legal costs are paid by BIS because of the Government’s failure to attend the original appeal hearing.

John Hannett – Usdaw General Secretary says: “We are very angry that this appeal has been permitted, but we will again fight the case in the Court of Appeal for the 1,200 former employees of Ethel Austin and 3,200 former employees of Woolworths who were denied an award purely on the basis of the number of staff working at each individual store.

“These workers were treated unfairly right from the very start by being excluded from the redundancy consultation, further wronged by being denied access to compensation and now face another delay in getting the award they deserve.

“It is particularly galling that the Government lodged an appeal after not bothering to attend the EAT hearing. These were mass redundancy situations because the businesses were closing down and it is no fault of the individual workers how small the store was that they worked in.

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

“I hope that all parties will work to get the matter resolved as quickly as possible to the benefit of former Woolworths and Ethel Austin staff.”

Background

In January 2012 Usdaw won compensation worth nearly £70 million 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.

In May 2013 Usdaw won a landmark legal case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal that should have seen around 4,400 ex-Woolworths and Ethel Austin staff share over £5 million compensation. The decision overturned the previous ruling that saw shopworkers employed in stores with fewer than 20 staff denied a pay out when the Administrators failed to consult with the staff’s representatives, which they are obliged to do when a business goes into administration. This ruling will meant that the affected staff at Woolworths will be entitled to up to eight weeks pay and at Ethel Austin up to 12 weeks pay.

Latest news

Helen Wada: Why engagement initiatives fail without human-centric leadership

Workforce engagement has become a hot topic across the boardroom and beyond, particularly as hybrid working practices have become the norm.

Recruiters warned to move beyond ‘post and pray’ as passive talent overlooked

Employers risk missing most candidates by relying on job boards as hiring methods struggle to deliver quality applicants.

Employment tribunal roundup: Appeal fairness, dismissal reasoning, discrimination tests and religious belief clarified

Decisions examine appeal failures, dismissal reasoning, discrimination claims and religious belief, offering practical guidance on fairness, causation and proportionality.

Fears of AI cheating in hiring ‘overblown’ as employers urged to rethink assessments

Employers may be overstating concerns about AI misuse in recruitment as evidence of candidate manipulation remains limited.
- Advertisement -

More employees use workplace health benefits, but barriers still limit access

Many workers struggle to access employer healthcare support due to confusion, costs and unclear processes.

Gender pay gap in tech widens to nine-year high as AI roles drive salaries

Women in IT earn less as salaries rise faster in male-dominated AI and cybersecurity roles, widening pay differences.

Must read

Joshua Wöhle: Why 73% of AI usage is still happening outside of work

OpenAI recently released the largest study of ChatGPT usage to date - 1.5 million conversations analysed. The headline? Less than 30% of usage is work-related.

Mike Dolen: How AI empowers managers to lead with clarity and confidence

Managers are holding organisations together, and it’s burning them out. Demands have escalated, but support systems remain stuck in another era.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you