| Lyttle v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Ltd | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | European Court of Justice |
| Citation | (2015) C-182/13 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | NIIT 00555_12IT |
| Keywords | |
| Information and consultation | |
Lyttle v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Ltd(2015) C-182/13 is a UK labour law case, concerning the information and consultation in the European Union.
Facts
Employees of Bluebird Ltd, working at Woolworths shops, were dismissed. They claimed there was a failure to consult under CRD 1998 article (1)(a)(ii). Each shop had under 20 employees, and in none were more than 20 dismissed, which would trigger the duty to consult under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 188. The employees, represented by the union USDAW, argued the shops should collectively be deemed one establishment, so as to trigger the duty to consult.
The Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal held a reference should be made to the European Court of Justice.
Judgment
The Court of Justice, Fifth Chamber held that an establishment was part of an undertaking, and did not need any legal, economic, financial, administrative of technological autonomy. It would be the entity to which workers were assigned to carry out duties under art 1(1)(a), since Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v Panagiotidis (2007) C-270/05. The term should be interpreted the same under art 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii).
51. In the present case, on the basis of the information available to the Court set out at above, it appears that each of the stores at issue in the main proceedings is a distinct entity that is ordinarily permanent, entrusted with performing specified tasks, namely primarily the sale of goods, and which has, to that end, several workers, technical means and an organisational structure in that the store is an individual cost centre managed by a manager. 52. Accordingly, such a store is capable of satisfying the criteria set out in the case law cited at , and above relating to the term “establishment” in art.1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 ; this is, however, a matter for the referring tribunal to establish in the light of the specific circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings.
See also
| Information and consultation sources | |
|---|---|
| CFREU 2000 art 27 | |
| TULRCA 1992 ss 181-182 and Companies Act 2006 ss 172 and 417-419 | |
| AMS v Union locale des syndicats CGT (2014) C‑176/12 | |
| Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC art 2 | |
| Transfers of Undertakings Directive 2001/23/EC art 7 | |
| TULRCA 1992 ss 188-198 and TUPER 2006 regs 13-16 | |
| University of Stirling v UCU UKSC 26 | |
| Junk v Kühnel (2005) C-188/03 | |
| AEK ry v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy (2009) C-44/08 | |
| Lyttle v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Ltd (2015) C-182/13 | |
| Royal Mail Group Ltd v CWU EWCA Civ 1045 | |
| United States of America v Nolan UKSC 63 | |
| Information and Consultation Directive 2002/14/EC art 4(2) | |
| Information and Consultation Regulations 2004 (SI 3426/2004) | |
| Stewart v Moray Council ICR 1253 | |
| European Works Council Directive 2009/38/EC art 6(3) | |
| TICER 1999 | |
| see UK labour law |