Each shop had under 20 employees, and in none were more than 20 dismissed, which would trigger the duty to consult under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 188.

The employees, represented by the union USDAW, argued the shops should collectively be deemed one establishment, so as to trigger the duty to consult.

The Court of Justice, Fifth Chamber held that an establishment was part of an undertaking, and did not need any legal, economic, financial, administrative of technological autonomy.

It would be the entity to which workers were assigned to carry out duties under art 1(1)(a), since Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v Panagiotidis (2007) C-270/05.

In the present case, on the basis of the information available to the Court set out at [16] above, it appears that each of the stores at issue in the main proceedings is a distinct entity that is ordinarily permanent, entrusted with performing specified tasks, namely primarily the sale of goods, and which has, to that end, several workers, technical means and an organisational structure in that the store is an individual cost centre managed by a manager.