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

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

Simon Ratcliffe: Changing the language around inclusion in the workplace

"It takes much more than one individual to cultivate a diverse and inclusive business, and so hiring in this way only mirrors our approach of deficit resolution by quotas."

Nick Matthews: How line managers will keep workforces engaged for the return to work

"Understanding what support and skilling the UK workforce needs post-pandemic as we gear up for the so-called return to work is a priority."
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you