Where an employer in the UK proposes to dismiss more than 20 employees at one establishment in a period of 90 days, they must consult on a collective basis. If an employee resigns in response to a substantial change to their working conditions, they can be counted towards the 20-person threshold.

An employer’s claim that it failed to consult collectively because it was not aware that it was obliged to do so is no excuse, and protective awards (of up to three months pay per employee) remain payable in such circumstances.

An employer making 20 or more people redundant in a 90 day period in a single establishment must consult on a collective basis. What is meant by ‘establishment’?

Mr Badmos was a regional development manager for Family Mosaic Housing Association. This employer employed five regional development managers, three of which were new business managers and two were delivery managers. Mr Badmos was a delivery manager. In 2009, the Housing Association decided to reduce the number of regional development managers from five to four, eliminating one new business manager. Both sets of managers were treated as having interchangeable skills and so Mr Badmos’ role could be made redundant, despite the fact that his role as delivery manager was not being cut.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that a council could not rely on a statutory defence to justify an age discrimination claim. Sefton Council paid redundancy payments in accordance with the Civil Service Scheme. This scheme reduced redundancy payments if employees were eligible to draw a pension as it was thought unnecessary to compensate people drawing a pension for loss of a job to the same extent as if they were still in work.

In Devon PCT v Readman, Mrs Readman was a community matron at Devon Primary Care Trust. Her role was focused on managing community and district nursing in a small community hospital which had only 12 beds.

In Park Cakes Ltd v Shumba, four employees worked for a company within the Northern Foods Group until they TUPE transferred to the Vision Group. They were later made redundant and brought a claim for enhanced redundancy payments (equal to double the statutory package plus a lump sum payment of £600). They argued this on the basis that: