Redundancy Flashcards
Under what section of what act can the law law relating to redundancy be found?
s.139(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
When will an employee be taken to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy in respect of s.139(1)(a)
s. 139(1)(a) [if the dismissal is mainly or wholly attributable to] the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease
(i) to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or
(ii) to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed
When will an employee be treated as having been dismissed by reason of redundancy in respect of s.139(1)(b)
s. 139(1)(b) the fact the requirements of that business:
(i) for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or
(ii) for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer has ceased or diminished or expected to cease or diminsh
Murray and Others v Foyle Meats Ltd. 1999
- Applicants made redundant after decline in business prompted reorganisation in slaughter hall, the applicants primary place of work
- Claimed UD primarily as their contract stated they could be required to work elsewhere
HELD - ET had not erred in finding there was a diminution in employer’s requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, mainly on slaughtering lines
- HOL found dismissal fell within statutory definition of redundancy
- Definition of redundancy asks to questions of fact:
1) Whether requirements of business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have diminished
2) Is the applicants dismissal attributable, wholly or mainly, to the state of affairs. Q. of causation - HOL stated “there is no reason in law why the dismissal of an applicant should not be attributable to a diminution in the employer’s needs for employees irrespective of terms in their contract or the function which the applicant performed
Loy v Abbey National 2006
- Pursuer (national account manager) argued that following a merger he had became redundant due to significant changes to the conditions which applied to the performance of his duties
- He further argued that regional sales managers had received redundancy packages and he should have been treated in the same way
- The pursuer further argued that the new employer had lessened his exclusive control of his responsibilities amounting to the destruction of trust and confidence between them
HELD - There was no suggestion that work had ceased or diminished in the merged company
- Was impossible for court to make a comparison between national account manager and regional managers as the level of job was completely different
- The way in which the employer had acted may have even raised possibility that the pursuer was constructively dismissed butt this did not mean that the employee’s dismissal was by way of redundancy
Murphy v Epsom College 1983
FACTS
- Murphy was hired as an additional plumber to deal with heating installations to assist other plumber
- He was subsequently made redundant to make room for a heating technician some time later
ET HELD
- that he had been made redundant within definition of legislation or for some other substantial reason
EAT HELD
- That Murphy had been made redundant within the definition of legislation
- As a consequence of reorganisation, the requirements of the employer’s changed and a new job was created
- Despite there being no reduction in amount of work to be done and no reduction in number of employees to do it the ET were still entitled to find he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy
- The reorganisation involved a substantial change in particular kind of work required by employer (specialist in heating) therefore the employer’s ceased to require an employee to carry out work of a particular kind done by the appellant
Safeway Stores PLC v Burrell 1997
LANDMARK CASE
- Changed case law from previous years and set out new test in relation to s.139(1)(b)
1) Was the employee dismissed? IF so
2) Had the requirements of the employer’s business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind ceased or diminished or expected to? If so (TERMS OF APPLICANT’S EMPLOYMENT DUTIES IRRELEVANT)
3) Was the dismissal of the employee wholly or mainly caused by that state of affairs (CAUSATION)
North Riding Garages v Butterwick 1966
FACTS
- After a company had been taken over a respondent worker could not keep up with the new implemented methods and he was subsequently made redundant
- Appellants were placing more emphasis on sales side of business
- Respondent argued he should be entitled to redundancy but appellant argued he was dismissed because of incompetence and inefficiency
EAT HELD
- ET had erred in finding the respondent was entitled to redundancy payment as his old job of workshop manager had ceased to exist
- Requirements of an employee in the same role which require the employee to adapt himself, and failure to meet new standards cannot be regarded as dismissal for redundancy
- If the new methods had altered the nature of the work of the employee he may have been dismissed by redundancy if there was no requirements to do work of the particular kind that he formerly did
Curling and others v Securicor
FACTS
- Respondent held a contract to manage a detention centre which they subsequently lost to another company
- 8 appellants were employed at the detention and where notified of when employment would cease and that they would be placed in a possible redundancy situation
- The respondent said every effort would be made to find suitable alternative employment
- The appellants contracts contained a mobility clause
- The respondent circulated alternative employment everyone, bar 1, had accepted offers to work for the new company
- The respondent refused redundancy payments and stated if they appellants did not respond to job offers bs they would be held to have resigned
EAT HELD
- ET erred finding employees had not been dismissed under the definition of redundancy
- The part of the business they had been employed under closed down
- Respondents had not involved contractual mobility clause, instead offering alternative employment
- Employer could either have invoked clause or offered alternative employment and used that as a defence to redundancy payment
- Attitude of respondent was consistent with cessation of original employment and the appellant had been dismissed in law
- No actual suitable offer had been made to appellants rather details of other employment was sent with no acceptance
Home Office v Evans and others 2007
FACTS
- Claimants contracts contained mobility clauses
- Mobility clause invoked after home office decided to close their place of work
- Claimant’s repeatedly did not attend meetings discussing alternative employment
- Claimants resigned after being informed they would be transferred to Heathrow
- Claimants sought claim for UD
COA DECISION
- The EAT AND ET both erred in concluding claimants to have been constructively dismissed
- Case of Curling was not authority for proposition that employer was not legally entitled to invoke a mobility clause when a redundancy situation arises
- No question in this case of HO dodging from one contractual procedure to another
-The Home Office were entitled to invoke a mobility clause in order to avoid redundancy dismissals. The fact that it took this course made it unnecessary to follow redundancy procedures
