Collective redundancy rules apply where cause is employer’s retirement

16 July 2024

EU rules on collective redundancies still apply where a business is winding down as a result of the owner’s retirement, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled.

In Case C‑196/23 Plamaro, the court considered whether a Spanish law excluding “cases of the death, retirement or incapacity of the employer” from the requirement to consult with workers’ representatives was compatible with Directive 98/59 on collective redundancies.

The case concerned a businessperson whose retirement resulted in the termination of 54 employment contracts across eight of his business establishments.

Eight of the former employees subsequently brought a complaint of unlawful dismissal, which was dismissed. An appeal in the Spanish courts led to a referral to the CJEU.

In its judgment, the court recalled that the main objective of the directive is to make collective redundancies subject to prior consultation with the workers# representatives and the notification of the competent public authority.

It added that, according to its settled case law, there are collective redundancies, within the meaning of that directive, when there are terminations of employment contracts without the consent of the workers concerned.

The court found that the Spanish law is contrary to the directive, which applies in the event of the employer’s retirement as long as the threshold numbers of dismissals set out in the directive are met.

An employer’s retirement cannot be treated in the same way as an employer’s death, to which the directive does not apply, the court added. This is because an employer who retires is, in principle, capable of conducting consultations seeking, inter alia, to avoid the terminations or to reduce their number or, in any event, to mitigate the consequences.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Catriona Crumlish v Health Service Executive – Court of Appeal

On Oct. 15th, The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision against Caitriona Crumlish in her claim against Letterkenny University hospital. The plaintiff alleged that there was a failure to detect and diagnose breast cancer in May 2017 resulting in an alleged...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...