UK workers may lose the right to be consulted over redundancies following an appeal by the US Government to clarify EU law.
 
The EU Court of Appeal has asked the European Court of Justice to rule whether employers need to consult with staff before or after deciding to make them redundant, following an appeal by the US Government over the closure of a US army base in Southampton, Hampshire, in 2006, which resulted in the loss of 200 civilian jobs.
 
Under UK law, workers must be consulted before such a decision is made. As a result, a UK employment tribunal awarded Christine Nolan 30 days pay or £3,000 over the US Government’s failure to consult. The remaining staff were also awarded between £2,000 and £4,000, bringing the total compensation package to about £600,000.
 
Although the tribunal’s decision was upheld by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the US subsequently went to the EU Court of Appeal, claiming that as a foreign sovereign state it had no obligation to consult. The Appeals Court has now referred the case on to the European Court of Justice to clarify the legal situation.
 
The US Government is basing its appeal on a ECJ ruling in September 2009 in the case of Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto Alek RY versus Fujitsu Siemens Computers OY. It claims that the ruling indicated that an obligation to consult was not triggered by a proposed business decision to close a plant. The obligation only came into force after the business decision had been made and the intention of making redundancies was there.
 
Because the EU Court of Appeal regarded the situation as too important to risk adopting a wrong interpretation of the Fujitsu case, it has asked the ECJ for clarification, however.
 
But Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, described the situation as a “farce” and a waste of taxpayers’ money on both sides of the Atlantic.
 
“We now face the spectre of the use of US taxpayers’ money resulting in EU law diluting UK workers’ employment rights. UK workers may no longer have the right to be consulted on the reasons why they are to be made redundant, which will be outrageous,” he said.