The Government first announced plans for a shared ownership right to buy in October 2019. At the time the sector raised concerns about the impact the plans would have on housing associations ability to borrow. An election and a pandemic later the Government announced, during the CIH Housing Festival last week, the return of the right to shared ownership as part of its Affordable Homes Programme (AHP).
In the much anticipated judgment in the Woolworths and Ethel Austin cases, the ECJ confirmed that the law does not require that the number of dismissals in all of an employer's establishments be aggregated in order to determine whether the threshold for collective redundancy consultation is met. In another recent case (Lyttle v Bluebird), the ECJ confirmed that a single retail store is capable of being an “establishment” for these purposes.
The employer’s obligations in relation to collective redundancy consultation are set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA), which implements the European Collective Redundancies Directive. Under TULRCA employers are obliged to inform and collectively consult where they propose to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less. Where an employer fails to comply with the collective consultation provisions, an employment tribunal may make a protective award of up to 90 days' gross pay for each affected employee. Redundancy for these purposes is defined widely and would include dismissals as part of a change in terms and conditions exercise.
The law was thrown into disarray by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)’s decision in USDAW v Woolworths where the EAT found that the obligation to collectively consult applied whenever an employer was proposing to make 20 or more redundancies within 90 days across the whole of their business (not at any one establishment, as had previously been understood).
The ECJ’s judgement now reverses the position and confirms that employers will only need to engage in collective consultation where 20+ redundancies within 90 days are proposed at any one establishment (not across the whole business). Therefore, if an employer proposes to make 20 or more redundancies across the business, but no more than 19 at any one establishment, they will not be under any obligation to collectively consult.
It is not always straightforward to know what constitutes an “establishment” for the purposes of the legislation and a number of factors will be taken into consideration. If an employer operates from a number of different sites, each site will not necessarily be an establishment. But if a site has an element of distinctness, performs specific tasks and has a management structure of its own, it is more likely that it will be an establishment. It is also possible to have a number of establishments operating from any one site. In Lyttle v Bluebird, the ECJ applied these tests and determined that a single retail store was capable of being an establishment.
Following the EAT’s USDAW v Woolworths decision, many employers have taken a cautious approach to collective redundancy consultation and preferred to engage in collective consultation even where 20 or more redundancies were not proposed at any one establishment (but rather the total number of redundancies across the business was 20 or more). Following the ECJ’s recent judgments, employers will be able to establish with greater clarity when the threshold of 20 employees is reached and can be reassured that if less than 20 redundancies are proposed at one establishment, the collective consultation obligation will not apply.
It will still not always be obvious what constitutes an establishment and for employers who, for example, run services from different sites located closely together caution needs to be taken when large redundancy programmes are being implemented.
For more information
Two final pieces of the possession jigsaw have been published on 15 September 2020. Mr Justice Knowles’ working group on possession proceedings has issued its guidance on the “overall arrangements” for possession proceedings.
One change proposed by the Building Safety Bill is the introduction of a duty holder regime, which will see statutory responsibility for the safety of higher risk buildings placed on key individuals
Throughout this pandemic, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been publishing various “Statements on Coronavirus” (Statements) which provide guidance on consumer rights during this time.
A recent increase in COVID-19 cases in the UK means new measures are being put in place in an effort to reduce the risk of a second wave. Whilst the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt, it is important to remain focused on the sector’s road to recovery.
Sometimes half an hour at a conference gives you the reality that has been staring you in the face all along. That was my experience watching “Change is on the Horizon”
Following our recent e-briefing on Possession Notices, Helen Tucker and Emilie Pownall from our housing litigation team discuss the impact of the changes on social landlords.
Not only has the possession stay been extended until 20 September, the notice periods to be given to tenants has been extended in certain circumstances with some important exceptions.
The Court has confirmed that a party cannot withhold its consent in order to re-write the original bargain.
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, building safety continues to be a key concern for social housing providers and their residents.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.