6. ED

Question 1

economic dismissals - general

Answer 1

legal framework is deferent (harsh to E)
idea: business must operate in free economy so law must allow restructuring to prevent job loss later

ENCOUARGING REDUNDANCIES IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMY

Question 2

competing policies

Answer 2

ONE - CAPITAL MARKETS: businesses free to make decisions to increase profitability (protect managerial discretion)

TWO - EMPLOYMENT SECURITY: employees are not a commodity (must protect them)

THREE - SOCIAL COST (e.g. government supporting unemployed)

Question 3

Redundancy dismissal triggers 2 claims

Answer 3

ONE - statutory redundancy payment (S.136, s.139)
TWO - potentially fair dismissal (s.98(2)c)

IF RISK UD –> MAYBE END UP WITH NOTHING
BUT IF WIN –> MORE THAN REDUNDANCY PAYMENT

Question 4

regulatory impact

Answer 4

protecting E affects managerial discretion and competitive advantage of employers

if R paid more compensation, additional cost will increase unemployment because R’s demand for labour = supressed

Question 5

s.139(1)

Answer 5

redundancy if:

1) cessation of business
2) cessation of/diminution for need for employees

Question 6

Moon v Homeworthy Furniture

Answer 6

R shut down factory

• REDUNDNACY
• R can shut down even profitable business (motive irrelevant)
• there can be no investigation into rights and wrongs of declared redundancy (decision solely with R)

Q is just whether work has ceased in a particular place

Question 7

PLACE OF WORK

Answer 7

R or E might argue not redundancy because of mobility clause

- if E can be asked to move then not redundancy (not cessation for need of employee)

Question 8

UK Atomic Energy v Claydon

Answer 8

CONTRACT TEST for place of work

• formalistic approach
• mobility clause requires E to relocate
• no redundnacy

Question 9

High Table v Horst

Answer 9

FACTUAL TEST for place of work

• dissent to contract test
• if E only worked in 1 place in practice, ignore mobility clause

Question 10

DIMINISHING REQ. FOR WORK OF A PARTICULAR KIND

Answer 10

OLD (2 options):

1. CONTRAST test: any kind of work E contractually req. to perform
2. JOB FUNCTION test: work E actually did

NEW: (see Murray v Foyle)

Question 11

Murray v Foyle

Answer 11

ONE - is there a reduction of the workforce because of business reorganisation?

TWO - is the dismissal under consideration connected to that reduction?

Even if workforce reduction occurs in another party of business (not where E worked) it can be redundancy

Question 12

Safeway Stores v Burrell

Answer 12

supermarket = major restructuring

• removed middle management
• E employed as petrol manager but didn’t do manager things
• offered new terms (same but less pay)
• E rejected
• REDUNDANCY (ONE and TWO of Murray satisfied)

E’s terms put him in the category of workforce reduction

Question 13

s.141

Answer 13

OFFER SUITABLE ALTERANTIVE

- if E did not reasonably refuse = no compensation

Question 14

STATUTORY REDUNDANCY PAYMENT

Answer 14

same as basic award for UD (s.162(2)

Question 15

UD?

Answer 15

Slim prospects of successful claim

• sound business reason = SOSR for dismissal
• R’s business outweighs E’s objections

Question 16

Richmond v Pearce

Answer 16

UD claim

• test for fairness is not BORR
• test is whether terms offered (new) were ones a reasonable r could offer considering pros/cons of both parties

Question 17

Devon v Redman

Answer 17

BORR not helpful here

- test is whether it was reasonable to refuse offer of employment?