Redundancy Flashcards
legislation outlining the selection process for redundancy
ERA 1996
the redundancy was unfair as the employer limited the size of the pool to one individual and this was not held to be reasonable in the circumstances
Capita Hartshead v Byard
duty to use a fair and objective way to select persons for redundancy - essential to show the basis of the selection process and how it was applied in practice
Cox v Wildt Mellor Bromley Ltd
the criteria used for redundancy selection should be capable of being objectively checked against matters such as attendance record, efficiency, staff appraisal, qualifications, experience and any disciplinary action taken against the employee
Williams v Compair Maxam
“last in, first out” - in this case it was held that seniority should be considered in redundancy, if it is not, the redundancy may be considered as unfair dismissal
Farthing v Midland House Stores
a company may be able to justify deciding to keep a less senior manager if they are more suitable for future tasks, so long as this is not the only reason for selection for redundancy
Hobson v Park Brothers
if it is proved that the selection process was not fair, the employee can claim a basic award and possibly a compensatory award under
s162 and s123 ERA 1996
the amount of basic award will be reduced by any redundancy payment made by the employer or ordered by the ET
s122 ERA 1996
compensatory damages for unfair dismissal are intended to cover actual loss only
Langley v Burlo
redundancy under this section can occur due to:
- close of business
- closure of the workplace
- change in requirements of the business
s139 ERA 1996
the employer is required to consult the authorised reps of the trade union or other elected reps about the redundancy
s188-194 TULR(C) A 1992
definition for redundancy
s195 TULR(C) A 1992
those being consulted have reasonable opportuinty to understand the subject matter of the consultation, express their views and the other party must “genuinely” consider their options.
British Coal Corp and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex pate Price and Others
consultation is required even where the employer company is in administration, however, a lack of consultation will be acceptable in “special circumstances” such as a “sudden” insolvency of a business rather than an anticipated insolvency
Clarks of Hove v Bakers Union
where an employer breaches the duty to consult, a tribunal may make a protective award
s188 TULR(C) A 1992
there will not be a dismissal where, before the existing contract of employment comes to an end the employee is offered re-engagement or alternative work by the employer, to commence no later than 4 weeks after the termination of the original contract
s138 ERA 1996
reengagement occurs where the employee is offered a renewal of their contract on terms which are the same, in particular as to the capacity in which employed and the place of employment
Briggs v ICI
where the employee is offered a renewal of their contract on terms which are the same, the employee looses their right to redundancy pay as there is no redundancy
s141(1) ERA 1996
if either the employer/ee terminates the new contract within the trial period employment is deemed to end with the termination of the original contract and for the reasons for which the contract was terminated
s138 ERA 1996
if the employee has unreasonably terminated a new contract on different terms which was suitable for them within the trial period, they will not be entitled to a redundancy payment
s141(1) ERA 1996
the employee must be given sufficient time to consider the offer and the employment must be substantially equivalent; not only in the terms and conditions of the contract but also the status of the employee
Taylor v Kent County Council
