<

!Google ads have two elements of code. This is the 'header' code. There will be another short tag of code that is placed whereever you want the ads to appear. These tags are generated in the Google DFP ad manager. Go to Ad Units = Tags. If you update the code, you need to replace both elements.> <! Prime Home Page Banner (usually shows to right of logo) It's managed in the Extra Theme Options section*> <! 728x90_1_home_hrreview - This can be turned off if needed - it shows at the top of the content, but under the header menu. It's managed in the Extra Theme Options section * > <! 728x90_2_home_hrreview - shows in the main homepage content section. Might be 1st or 2nd ad depending if the one above is turned off. Managed from the home page layout* > <! 728x90_3_home_hrreview - shows in the main homepage content section. Might be 2nd or 3rd ad depending if the one above is turned off. Managed from the home page layout* > <! Footer - 970x250_large_footerboard_hrreview. It's managed in the Extra Theme Options section* > <! MPU1 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! MPU2 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! MPU - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section3* > <! MPU4 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_1 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_2 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_3 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_4 - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Sidebar_large_5 are not currently being used - It's managed in the Widgets-sidebar section* > <! Bombora simple version of script - not inlcuding Google Analytics code* >

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.

“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

Turning Workforce Data into Real Insight: A practical session for HR leaders

HR teams are being asked to deliver greater impact with fewer resources. This practical session is designed to help you move beyond instinct and start using workforce data to make faster, smarter decisions that drive real business results.

Bethany Cann of Specsavers

A working day balancing early talent strategy, university partnerships and family life at the international opticians retailer.

Workplace silence leaving staff afraid to raise mistakes

Almost half of UK workers feel unable to raise concerns or mistakes at work, with new research warning that workplace silence is damaging productivity.

Managers’ biggest fears? ‘Confrontation and redundancies’

Survey of UK managers reveals fear of confrontation and redundancies, with many lacking training to handle difficult workplace situations.
- Advertisement -

Mike Bond: Redefining talent – and prioritising the creative mindset

Not too long ago, the most prized CVs boasted MBAs, consulting pedigrees and an impressive record of traditional experience. Now, things are different.

UK loses ground in global remote work rankings

Connectivity gaps across the UK risk weakening the country’s appeal to remote workers and internationally mobile talent.

Must read

Kevin Green: Eight key market trends for recruitment

Kevin Green Chief Executive at REC (Recruitment and Employment Confederation) At...

Tom Castley: Bridging the gender pay gap

The gender pay gap is an on-going battle and a topic of much discussion and debate, with recent research suggesting global leaders believe gender equality in the workplace is an average of 17 years away.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you

Exit mobile version