Custom-Written, AI-Free & Plagiarism-Free Academic Work by Assignment Experts

Assignment Experts UK is a trading name of AKOSZ TEC LTD (Company No. 11483120). View on Companies House

Collective Redundancies and the Effects of EU Law

Assignment Brief

ASSESSMENT QUESTION

Answer any TWO out of the three questions below:

Question 1

Cambridge Clearplus Energy Ltd (CCE) is the energy supplier for the Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk area. Following an internal review of its activities, the board of CCE decided to undertake a programme of job reductions which would lead to several redundancies. (Fictitious) Directive 2017/84 (‘the Directive’) relates to the protection of workers dismissed by collective redundancy. Article 3 of the Directive applies to redundancies and requires employers to consult the workers’ representatives with a view to reaching an agreement before going ahead with redundancies. The UK has implemented the (fictitious) Trade Union Act 2018, introduced to transpose Directive 2017/84, which provides that the protection is afforded only to employees whose interests are represented by an independent trade union recognised by the employer. Unitrade is an independent trade union which was formed following the merger of other two trade unions and represents workers in the energy sector. CCE does not recognise Unitrade as a trade union. Consequently, the CCE created a staff council which had consulted about the implementation of the proposed job losses. Unitrade contended that provisions of Directive 2017/84, relating to collective redundancies, were directly enforceable against CCE, stating that CCE were required to consult with Unitrade under Article 3 of the Directive.

Discuss all the three possible effects of EU law in the national system by advising Unitrade on the most likely outcome of this case.

Question 2

Mary, a British national, is 33 years old and wishes to settle permanently in Italy. She has been living in Rome for the past seven months. Shortly after her arrival in Rome, Mary struggled in finding a job and after 2 months, she started to work from her home as a hairdresser while looking for a more stable job. Eventually Mary secured a permanent employment as a kitchen assistant in a restaurant. She worked there for 25 hours a week but she quickly began to feel very despondent as her income was below the minimum wage. Soon after, Mary became involved in criminal activities. She has just been convicted of robbery with violence and the Italian court is considering ordering her expulsion from Italy on public policy grounds. Marco is an Italian national who founded and manages a limited company that for a fee helps EU nationals to find a job in Rome. Marco put Mary in contact with the restaurant where she worked as kitchen assistant. Following her criminal conviction, Marco is worried of the possible negative consequences for his business. He has, therefore, decided to move to the UK and to relocate his business there for a while. He is planning to rent an office in Cambridge. The UK`s decision to exit the EU has created great uncertainty for many people across the UK and Europe, including for Mary and Marco. Advise Mary and Marco on to the application of EU law on the free movement of natural and legal persons to each aspect of this situation.

Question 3

Sweden has become worried by the presence of certain pesticide residues in plants, which some scientific studies have indicated may pose a health risk. In particular Swedish authorities are concerned about a specific pesticide marketed under the name ‘Zappicide’. Zappicide is legally in use in other EU member states and there are no EU rules placing restrictions on its use. Sweden has passed national legislation which seeks to limit its use. Amongst its provisions are: A limit on the concentration of Zappicide in any fruit, vegetables or cereals sold in Sweden. A requirement that all cereals, vegetables and fruits imported into the country should have a certificate stating whether Zappicide has been used in their production. A system of compulsory inspections has been put in place to check whether imported produce exceeds the levels set down by Swedish law. A small charge is made for this inspection. A ban on all advertising or sales promotion of any produce which contains any level of Zappicide residue (even if this is within the permitted levels). Roberto is an Italian producer of new varieties of tomato, which he was hoping to market in Sweden. He is concerned by the new legislation in Sweden as he has found that Zappicide is the most effective pesticide for his crops and he thinks his produce may exceed the limits imposed by Sweden. Even if he is able to reduce the levels in his crops, the inspections and certificates are going to inconvenience him, and the charge for inspections will affect his profits. Furthermore, because he is producing new varieties, he was relying on an advertising and sales promotion campaign to help him break into the market in Sweden. Roberto would like to know whether it would be possible to challenge the Swedish provisions on the basis of EU law.

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
tailored to your instructions

Sample Answer

Collective Redundancies and the Effects of EU Law

Background and Legal Issue

The dispute between Cambridge Clearplus Energy Ltd and Unitrade arises from the implementation of Directive 2017/84 on collective redundancies. Article 3 of the Directive requires employers to consult workers’ representatives with a view to reaching agreement before making collective redundancies. The UK’s Trade Union Act 2018 limits this protection to employees represented by a trade union recognised by the employer. Since CCE does not recognise Unitrade, it instead consulted a staff council.

Unitrade argues that Article 3 of the Directive should be directly enforceable against CCE and that consultation with Unitrade was legally required. To assess the likely outcome, it is necessary to consider the three possible effects of EU law in national systems.

Direct Effect

Direct effect allows individuals or organisations to rely on EU law before national courts, provided the provision is clear, precise and unconditional. Directives can only have vertical direct effect, meaning they can be enforced against the state or an emanation of the state, but not against a purely private employer.

CCE is a private energy supplier and there is no indication that it is controlled by the state or performs a public service under state authority. Applying the principles established in cases such as Foster v British Gas, CCE would not qualify as an emanation of the state. As a result, Article 3 of Directive 2017/84 cannot be enforced directly against CCE.

Unitrade is therefore unlikely to succeed if it relies solely on direct effect.

Indirect Effect

Indirect effect requires national courts to interpret domestic legislation, as far as possible, in line with the wording and purpose of EU directives. This principle was established in Von Colson and later strengthened in Marleasing.

In this case, the Trade Union Act 2018 limits consultation rights to employees represented by a recognised trade union. However, the Directive refers more broadly to workers’ representatives, without restricting this to recognised unions. A UK court would be under a duty to interpret the 2018 Act in a way that aligns with the Directive, if such an interpretation is possible.

A court might interpret the phrase relating to representation more broadly so that independent trade unions such as Unitrade fall within its scope, even if they are not formally recognised by the employer. However, indirect effect cannot be used to rewrite national law in a way that is clearly contrary to its wording. Since the Act expressly restricts protection to recognised trade unions, the court may find that a compliant interpretation is not realistically possible.

If that is the case, indirect effect will offer only limited assistance to Unitrade.

State Liability

State liability allows individuals to claim compensation from the state where a Member State has failed to correctly implement EU law, as established in Francovich and later cases. For liability to arise, the directive must confer rights on individuals, the breach must be sufficiently serious, and there must be a direct causal link between the breach and the damage suffered.

Here, Directive 2017/84 clearly grants workers the right to consultation through their representatives. By limiting this right only to recognised trade unions, the UK has arguably failed to properly transpose the Directive. This appears to be a clear breach, as the Directive does not permit such a restriction.

Unitrade could therefore advise affected workers to pursue a claim against the UK state for failure to implement the Directive correctly. While this does not force CCE to consult Unitrade directly, it is likely to be the most effective legal route available.

Likely Outcome for Unitrade

Unitrade is unlikely to succeed in enforcing Article 3 directly against CCE due to the absence of horizontal direct effect. Indirect effect may help but is uncertain due to the restrictive wording of the Trade Union Act 2018. The strongest argument lies in state liability, allowing claims against the UK government for incorrect implementation of EU law.

No, you only answer the number specified. Here it was any two, so choosing the strongest two is smart.

Usually no. Directives only apply directly against the state or bodies closely linked to it.

Because even valid aims like public health cannot justify rules that go further than necessary.

No. Restrictions are allowed, but only if they are justified and proportionate.

Mark

Honestly saved me. The EU law question was scary but the essay came back clear and my tutor said the analysis was strong. Got a 68.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
Rachel

Really liked how natural it sounded. Didn’t feel like AI at all. My lecturer even wrote “well argued” on the script.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
Arthur

I was stuck on direct effect and state liability. Assignment Experts explained it properly and I ended up with a solid 2:1.

United Kingdom

★★★★★
Hazel

Super chill service. Essay made sense and actually answered the question. Way better than my own draft and I passed comfortably.

United Kingdom

★★★★★