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.