• Home
  •  > 
  • Member Directory
  •  > 
  • Addleshaw Goddard
  •  > 
  • Articles
  •  > 
  • Collective redundancies: ECJ decides that "establishment" means the local employment unit and dismissals do not need to be aggregated across separate establishments

News & Events

Collective redundancies: ECJ decides that "establishment" means the local employment unit and dismissals do not need to be aggregated across separate establishments

Submitted By Firm: Addleshaw Goddard

Contact(s): Michael Leftley, Sarah Harrop


Amanda Steadman

Date Published: 6/18/2015

Article Type:

Share This:

In 2013 the EAT reached a controversial decision requiring businesses to aggregate dismissals across the whole of their business for the purposes of triggering collective consultation. The case was referred to the ECJ to rule on the meaning of establishment. Today, the ECJ has handed down a decision which confirms that "establishment" means the local employment unit to which the redundant worker is assigned to carry out his duties. Further, employers are not obliged to aggregate dismissals across different establishments. Therefore, the UK's collective redundancy legislation prior to the EAT's decision had been compatible with the EU Collective Redundancies Directive (USDAW and Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) and others).

Legal framework

The obligation to consult with representatives when making collective redundancies is derived from the EU Collective Redundancies Directive (Directive). When implementing the Directive, Member States were able to choose from two possible definitions of "collective redundancies":

  • The first option required consultation where, over a period of 30 days, the number of proposed redundancies was: (i) at least 10 employees in establishments normally employing more than 20 but fewer than 100 workers; (ii) at least 10% of the number of workers in establishments normally employing 100 – 299 workers; or (iii) at least 30 in establishments normally employing 300 workers or more (Option 1); or
  • The second option required consultation where, over a period of 90 days, the number of proposed redundancies was at least 20, whatever the number of workers normally employed in the establishments in question (Option 2).

The UK chose Option 2. However, the wording in our domestic legislation, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA), took a more restrictive approach and provided that employers were only obliged to consult where they were: "…proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less" (s.188(1)).

It had been argued that under the Directive the duty to consult arose as soon as 20 or more employees were to be dismissed within a 90-day period, regardless of where the employees were employed. By contrast, under TULRCA, the obligation to consult was only triggered where 20 or more redundancies were proposed at a single establishment.

The "Woolworths" case – what did the EAT decide?

In July 2013, in a case brought on behalf of workers made redundant from two separate retail businesses (Woolworths Group plc and Ethel Austin Ltd), the EAT decided that all redundant employees were entitled to be collectively consulted once the overall number of redundancies had reached 20 or more across the entire business, regardless of where the employees worked. The EAT decided that the words "at one establishment" were to be deleted from section 188 of TULRCA in order to be compatible with the Directive. You can read our full report on the decision here.

In reaching this decision, the EAT concluded that the existing European case law on the meaning of "establishment" related only to Option 1 of the Directive and that there were no cases concerning the meaning of establishment for the purposes of Option 2 – the approach adopted by the UK. Accordingly, it fell to the EAT to decide the meaning of establishment for these purposes. The EAT concluded that when deciding the meaning of establishment their core objective was to advance the rights of workers in accordance with the Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

This radical decision meant that employers needed to commence collective consultation once there was a proposal to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees within a 90-day period, wherever they were based. This was particularly onerous for large, multi-site employers.

Court of Appeal – reference to the ECJ

The Government applied to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal. In January 2014, the Court of Appeal referred the case to the ECJ, where it was joined with a Northern Irish case and Spanish case concerning similar issues (Lyttle and others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Ltd EUECJ C-182/13 and Andres Rabal Canas v Nexea Gestion Documental, SA, Fondo de Garantia Salarial EUECJ C-392/13).

The two key questions referred to the ECJ were:

(i) Does the phrase "at least 20" within Option 2 of the Directive refer to dismissals across all establishments affected within a 90-day period or does it refer to dismissals occurring in each individual establishment?

(ii) If it refers to individual establishments, what is the meaning of establishment? Is it the whole of the relevant business being a single economic business unit (or such part of the business that is considering the redundancies) or is it the unit to which the worker is assigned to carry out their duties?

The ECJ heard the case on 20 November 2014.

Advocate General's Opinion

In February 2015, ahead of the ECJ's decision, the Advocate General delivered a welcome opinion for employers confirming that establishment meant the local employment unit to which the redundant worker was assigned to carry out his duties. Further, the Directive did not require dismissals across all of the employer's establishments to be aggregated when deciding whether the consultation thresholds are met.

This opinion, therefore, endorsed the orthodox approach of counting numbers for collective consultation by reference to the local employment unit rather than across the whole business. You can read our full report on the Advocate General's opinion here.

ECJ's decision

On 30 April 2015, the ECJ handed down its decision. They observed that "establishment" is a term of EU law and cannot be defined by reference to the laws of Member States. Therefore, the term must be interpreted in an "autonomous and uniform manner".

The Court noted that the term had already been considered in the context of Option 1 of the Directive. Together, the decisions in the cases of Rockfon and Athinaiki provided the following guidance on the meaning of establishment:

  • Establishment means the unit to which the redundant worker is assigned to carry out his duties.
  • An establishment does not need to have a management that can independently effect the redundancies.
  • An establishment, in the context of a wider undertaking, may consist of a distinct entity, having a certain degree of permanence and stability, and which has a workforce, technical means, and a certain organisational structure permitting the accomplishment of certain tasks.
  • It is not necessary for an establishment to have legal, economic, financial, administrative or technological autonomy.

In the Court's view, the case law confirmed that establishment meant the entity to which the redundant worker is assigned to carry out his duties (provided that the entity met the criteria set out above). This was the case regardless of whether the Member State had adopted Option 1 or Option 2. Option 2 was a "substantially equivalent alternative" to Option 1.

There was nothing in the Directive to support the view that "establishment" should have different meanings for Options 1 and 2. Indeed, to allow different meanings would mean that workers employed in an Option 2 Member State would have better protection that workers employed in an Option 1 Member State. This would be contrary to the aims of providing comparable protection and harmonising costs across Member States. To permit a wider meaning for Option 2 could also bring individual, unrelated redundancies within the consultation regime, which would go against the ordinary understanding of "collective redundancy".

The Court, therefore, concluded that:

(i) Establishment has the same meaning for Options 1 and 2 of the Directive. This means that the establishment is the entity to which the redundant worker is assigned to carry out his duties.

(ii) It is consistent with the Directive for dismissals to be counted per establishment. There is no requirement to aggregate dismissals across some, or all, establishments.

Therefore, the original wording of section 188 of TULRCA was not incompatible with the Directive.


Many employers doubted the correctness of the EAT decision and had chosen to continue using the orthodox approach of counting numbers for collective consultation by reference to the local employment unit, rather than across the whole business. This case will now return to the Court of Appeal to make its decision in light of this ruling. It seems highly likely that the Court of Appeal will overturn the EAT's decision and restore the original wording of s.188 of TULRCA. Pending that decision, however, the ECJ's ruling will provide employers with greater comfort that the orthodox approach is legitimate. Such an approach is also consistent with the current ACAS guidance on handling collective redundancies.

A return to the orthodox approach, however, does not avoid arguments that different sites constitute a single establishment. This will be a question of fact, taking into account the factors set out by the ECJ (see the bullet points above). There may be cases where different geographical entities should properly be considered as a single establishment. Indeed, the Advocate General had offered the example of an employer operating several stores within one shopping centre, stating that it would not be inconceivable that all such stores should be regarded as a single local employment unit. Where this is the case then redundancy dismissals would need to counted across all relevant sites when determining whether the collective consultation threshold had been met.

USDAW and Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) and others

Find a Member

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

Stephen HirschfeldAs an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel