D decided to shut a mine down with large numbers of resulting redundancies. The union, P, argued that the traditional understanding of s.188-that there was no need for D to consult about the reasons for the redundancies-was wrong, since it prevented serious consultation over the avoidance of redundancies. EAT agreed, and said the traditional proposition (as propounded in Vardy) was no longer good law. It would be impossible to consult about avoiding the dismissals if the reason for them (the mine closure) couldn’t be discussed.
Elias J: it is artificial to maintain a distinction between the reasons for a dismissal and the reasons for closure since the two are obviously interlinked.