The appeal by BIS in the Woolworths  case (USDAW v Ethel Austin Ltd and  others) was heard in the Court of  Appeal on 22 January. The EAT had  previously ruled that the words “at  one establishment” in TULRECA are  to be disregarded for the purposes of  any collective redundancy involving  20 or more employees. This was a  significant change to the law and  meant that, once it was proposed  that at least 20 employees in a single  business were to be made redundant  in a 90-day period, their place of  work was irrelevant for the purposes  of triggering the information and  consultation obligations. This is key  for employers with multi-site  operations. The Court of Appeal  decided to refer the Woolworths  case to the ECJ for a definitive  decision on the meaning of  ‘establishment’ – is it each shop or  the whole UK business? The  Woolworths case may be joined with a case from Northern Ireland, Lyttle  and others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2  Ltd, which is on a similar point and  was referred to the ECJ last summer.  Until we have an ECJ decision,  employers will be faced with  continuing uncertainty over how to  deal with large-scale redundancies.  It is likely that any ongoing tribunal  cases on this point will be stayed  pending an ECJ decision.