Unclear jurisprudence. In this case, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales asked the ECJ clarify its jurisprudence on the time at which the obligation to consult workers’ representatives arises in the context of collective redundancy, pursuant to Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies. According to the British court, the convoluted wording of the Akavan ruling (see our dispatch No. 090826), doesn’t state whether the obligation arises when the employer is planning to make a strategic or operational decision which, foreseeably or inevitably, will lead to collective redundancies or only when that decision has actually been made and the employer is planning to proceed with the consequential redundancies. However, pretending to ask for clarification, it seems that the British court is trying to get the ECJ to revise its jurisprudence. Indeed, between the lines, it points to the lack of consistency of the Akavan case law with the objectives of Directive 98/59 and highlights that interpreting this decree would question a national case law (UK Coal), which precisely made changes to introduce the notion of consultation early enough to work on alternatives to redundancies. In other words, it seems that Community jurisprudence is more restrictive than UK jurisprudence.
26), doesn’t state whether the obligation arises when the employer is planning to make a strategic or operational decision which, foreseeably or inevitably, will lead to collective redundancies or only when that decision has actually been made and the employer is planning to proceed with the consequential redundancies. However, pretending to ask for clarification, it seems that the British court is trying to get the ECJ to revise its jurisprudence. Indeed, between the lines, it points to the
…Do you have information to share with us?