MSF v Refuge Assurance [2002] IRLR 324
Judgement for the case MSF v Refuge Assurance
Table Of Contents
Two life assurance companies were due to merge, which could have meant possible redundancies.
Under s.188 the employer only has to consult when it is proposing to make redundancies, whereas under directive 75/129 an employer who contemplates it has to do so.
-
The EAT held that the two are incompatible because the latter arises where the employer is merely thinking about redundancies, whereas the former only arises when there are concrete proposals to put to the union.
Thus in this situation, where it wasn’t yet sure whether there would be redundancies, there could not be a proposal and hence no breach of s.188 TULRCA occurred.
For Further Study on MSF v Refuge Assurance
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Labour Law | Economic Restructuring Redundancy+ Transfers Of Undertakings Notes (42 pages) |
| Labour Law | Representation At Work Notes (16 pages) |
| Labour Law | The Employment Relationship Notes (71 pages) |
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.