Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: February 21, 2012
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 12 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
It was announced in January, that the high street chain Woolworths, who went into liquidation in 2008 have lost their employment Tribunal against the Trade Union USDAW, awarding compensation of £67.8 million to be shared between 24,000 workers.
The Tribunal found that as the Union had not been correctly consulted by Deloittes, the administration firm who dealt with the Liquidation of the High Street Chain, had failed in their legal duty and thus made the redundancies unfair.
As a result, all of the 24,000 workers were awarded 60 days pay.
The Case acts as an important reminder that consultation during redundancy is so important, as it can lead to payment of compensation, further down the line regardless of whether the redundancy was fair or not.
