As reported in our briefing last week, the European Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in the case of Union of Shop, Distributive & Allied Workers (USDAW) and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) and others (C–80/14) in relation to long running claims brought by former employees of national retailers Woolworths and Ethel Austin, which arose out of the administration and closure of all of their retail stores. The ECJ had to consider the meaning of “establishment” in the legislation, which triggers an obligation to undertake collective consultation when an employe

The current position

USDAW and others v WW Realisation 1 Limited (in Liquidation) and another ET 3201156/2010

This case concerns the recent news about the protective award made against Woolworths PLC.  Woolworths which employed over 27,000 employees in 814 stores went into administration at the end of November 2008.  Joint administrators were appointed and it went into liquidation.

Independent Insurance Co Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Aspinall and another UKEAT/0051/11

Independent Insurance Company - IIC- went into provisional liquidation in June 2001.  Half of its employees were made redundant including Mr Aspinall and Mrs O’Callaghan.  They issued proceedings claiming a protective award when IIC failed to comply with its collective consultation obligations, consult with employee representatives or arrange for necessary elections.   

Administrators will note with concern the decision of the East London Employment Tribunal in Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and Others, which suggests that administrators can be held to be personally liable for the discrimination of employees of the business in administration.

The EAT has confirmed that it is not necessary for the eventual transferee to have been identified in order for an employee, dismissed in the run up to a transfer, to claim automatic unfair dismissal by reason of a relevant transfer under TUPE (Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine & another).

In another case involving administrators, an employment tribunal somewhat controversially has held that the individual administrators could be liable as principals in an agency relationship with employees of a company in administration.

In what circumstances might an individual administrator be liable for discrimination against employees of companies in administration? This was the question the Employment Tribunal asked itself in the case of Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and others.

Since the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were made in order to implement the European Union’s Council Directive 80/987/EEC, there has been an ongoing debate on how regulation 8 (7) (the bankruptcy proceedings exception) should be interpreted. Fortunately, a recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has gone some way towards clarifying the issue.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has decided that the sale of a business by way of a pre-pack administration[1] did not result in a transfer of employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, (TUPE Regulations or TUPE).

TUPE Regulations