| University of Stirling v UCU | |
| Court: | Supreme Court |
| Citations: | [2015] UKSC 26 |
| Judges: | Baroness Hale Lord Wilson Lord Sumption Lord Reed Lord Hughes |
| Opinions: | Baroness Hale |
| Keywords: | Information and consultation |
University of Stirling v UCU. 2015. UKSC. 26. is a UK labour law case, concerning the information and consultation in the European Union.
In 2009 to deal with a budget deficit, the University of Stirling proposed 140 redundancies. Under TULRCA 1992 section 188, it consulted with UCU but did not do so for employees on limited term contracts, which ended in the consultation period. UCU claimed they should be included and were dismissed as redundant.
The Tribunal held the employees were dismissed as redundant in three cases, but not a fourth. The EAT held all four were dismissed, but none as redundant. The Inner House agreed.
Baroness Hale held that the employees were dismissed as redundant. Expiry was a dismissal. And second, the dismissal was ‘for a reason not related to the individual concerned’ under TULRCA 1992 s 195(1). The fact that a person entered a contract for a limited could not mean that expiry was for a reason related to the individual. Parliament never intended to narrow the scope of consultation duties.
Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agreed.