Collective Redundancies and Territorial Jurisdiction 10 January 2019
The Court of Appeal has ruled that in a redundancy situation, an individual ship can be an 'establishment' for collective consultation.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
In a redundancy situation, can an individual ship be an 'establishment' for collective consultation?
Yes, held the Court of Appeal in Seahorse Maritime v Nautilus International.
After a redundancy exercise affecting crews based on ships operating outside Great Britain, the trade union Nautilus sought a protective award for a failure to consult collectively under s188 TULRCA 1992 . The issues were whether individual ships could be 'establishments' and whether s188 extended outside Great Britain to the ships. The employer was based in Farnham, Surrey, crew members were from the UK and overseas. The Court of Appeal held that each ship was an establishment, with assigned crews, noting such decisions are fact- sensitive. At para 30 the judgment gives guidance on establishing the number of employees at an 'establishment': the first question is whether an 'establishment' can be identified, applying the statutory wording and case law. The next question is whether a sufficient number of employees are employed at, i.e. assigned to, that establishment, which may require examining the 'assignment status' of individuals if this is contentious. A third question could be whether the employer proposes to dismiss sufficient numbers to trigger collective consultation. The second issue was whether s188 extends to ships outside Great Britain. The requirement was finding 'sufficient connection' to Great Britain; the dispute was whether the connection arose from the 'establishment' (i.e. the ship) or the individual employees. The connection is looked at from the establishment, the obligation arises at a collective level, the natural focus falling on the common feature of employment at the same establishment. Looking at the individuals for a connection could mean that some would lack sufficient connection with Great Britain to count towards the numbers required to trigger consultation. On the facts, there wasn't sufficient connection. The Court dismissed the claims without remission.
Back to Contents
High Court finds DWP unlawful on universal credit assessments 17 January 2019
In a test case victory for a group of working lone mothers, the High Court has found that the way the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been assessing income from employment through its Universal Credit (UC) work assessment periods is unlawful. In this judicial review case, brought by solicitors Leigh Day and Child Poverty Action Group on behalf of four lone mothers, Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Lewis ruled that the DWP has been wrongly interpreting the universal credit regulations. The case challenged the rigid, automated assessment system in universal credit which meant the mothers lost several hundreds of pounds each year and were subject to large variations in their universal credit awards because of the dates on which their paydays and universal credit 'assessment periods' happened to fall. The mothers all had monthly paydays that ‘clashed’ with the dates of their monthly universal credit assessment periods, with the result that if they were paid early some months, because their payday fell on a weekend or bank holiday for example, they were treated as receiving two monthly wages in one assessment period - which in turn dramatically reduced their UC award - and as receiving no wages at all the next month. This is a problem which has affected many working claimants and has been widely reported in the media.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 110 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker