Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Middlesborough BC v TGWU

[2002] IRLR 333

Case summary last updated at 18/02/2020 21:28 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Middlesborough BC v TGWU

D told the Union that it planned to make 150 employees redundant in over 90 days time, so as to allow for the consultation period under s.188. However it then issued redundancy notices the next day. TGWU argued (1) that the decision on redundancies had already been made, so that there was no genuine consultation, and (2) that consultation was supposed to be about ways of avoiding redundancies, and not merely mitigation or reductions in numbers. Thus D was in breach of art. 188. EAT agreed, saying that since ‘avoiding’ redundancies is one of the heads of consultation under 188, an employer may not escape it by arguing that consultation on that matter would be futile. Also the consultation was a sham: to be lawful within s.188 consultation has to be genuine and meaningful, with the views of the representatives being seriously considered by the employer. This wasn’t the case here. 

Middlesborough BC v TGWU crops up in following areas of law