UK Coal Mining Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) and Another
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKEAT 0397_06_2709 |
| Date | 25 October 2007 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Before Mr Justice Elias, Ms K. Bilgan and Mr M. Worthington.
Where an employer was proposing to dismiss employees for redundancy, the obligation to consult arose at the point when closure of the enterprise was fixed as a clear, albeit provisional, intention and included consultation over the reason for the closure.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when dismissing an appeal by the employers, UK Coal Mining Ltd, against a decision of a Newcastle upon Tyne employment tribunal to make protective awards for failure to consult properly under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) and the British Association of Colliery Management cross-appealed against the tribunal's finding that there was no obligation to consult over the reason for the closure.
Mr David Reade, QC, for the employers; Mr Simon Dyer and Ms Schona Jolly for the union; Mr Seamus Sweeney for the association.
MR JUSTICE ELIAS said that the employers owned the Ellington Colliery in Northumberland.
On January 12, 2005 the water level in the mine rose and on January 26 a press release stated that the mine would be closed on safety grounds. The first compulsory redundancies took place on February 26.
The employment tribunal found that although the authorities established there was no obligation to consult over the actual closure, the employers should have given some indication of the reason for the closure decision; that there was no credible evidence that the reason for the closure was safety, the reason given was misleading and the real reason was economic.
It concluded that the employers had failed to disclose the reason for the proposal to dismiss in accordance with section 188(4)(a) and awarded the maximum protective award of 90 days.
The appeal tribunal would uphold the tribunal's decision. The employers had failed to comply with their obligations under section 188(4)(a) by giving a false reason.
The unions cross-appealed, submitting that there was an obligation to consult over the reason for the redundancy and, where that was closure, it involved consulting over the reasons for the decision.
They contended that the dictum of Lord Justice Glidewell in R v British Coal Corporation, Ex...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States of America v Nolan
...[2005] ECR I-885, [2005] IRLR 310, raised a serious question whether that approach was compatible with EU law. In UK Coal Mining Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers [2008] ICR 163, decided in September 2007, the EAT (Elias P presiding) declined explicitly to depart from the established ap......
-
McGuckin vs MDC Tiles & Bathrooms Limited
...and acknowledged that the uplift provisions were more ‘penal than compensatory in nature’. In Davies v Farnborough College of Technology [2008] IRLR 4, Burton J suggested a maximum uplift could apply where there had been a complete and deliberate breach of any procedures. Subject to what is......
-
IBM United Kingdom Holdings Ltd and Another v Stuart Dalgleish and Others
...misled as to what the actual proposals are in terms of the timing of their impact on employees. They rely on UK Coal Mining Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) [2008] ICR 163. I take the following submissions from the RBs' written opening: i) In that case, section 188 ......
-
Mr C Benson and others v Carillion Services Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others: 2404292/2018 and others
...it was for the Tribunal to decide where on that spectrum it lies. In UK Coal Mining v National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) [2008] ICR 163 EAT and E Ivor Hughes Educational Foundation v Morris and others [2015] IRLR 696 EAT, there were contingent proposals which were sufficien......