Redundancy
In Hutchins v Permacell Finesse Ltd (in administration) EAT/0350/07, the EAT held that the starting point for determining a protective award is 90 days' pay, even where fewer than 100 redundancies are involved and the minimum consultation period is 30 days.
In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1065, the Court of Appeal ruled that the provision in the TUPE Regulations to the effect that a transferred contract of employment will have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee could not be construed so as to give the employee a contractual benefit to which she had not been entitled under her original contract.
A review of a number of recent employment tribunal decisions suggests that some employers remain unaware of the implications of, or are struggling with, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031), which became law on 1 October 2006. The decisions also demonstrate the approach that the tribunals might take to the question of justification of discrimination and to the assessment of injury to feelings compensation.
In UK Coal Mining Ltd v (1) National Union of Mineworkers (Northumberland Area) (2) The British Association of Colliery Management EAT/0397/06 & EAT/0141/07, the EAT held that the duty to consult about ways of "avoiding" redundancies inevitably involves consultation about the reasons behind the proposed dismissals and, contrary to previous authority, is not limited to consultation about how the redundancies are to be effected.
In Optare Group Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union EAT/0143/07 the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a tribunal was right to hold that voluntary redundancies counted towards the total number of proposed redundancy dismissals at an establishment, which in this case was sufficient to trigger the statutory collective consultation requirements.
In Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews and others EAT/0533/06 the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that where a procedurally unfair dismissal has not been rendered fair by the operation of s.98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal must nevertheless consider if there is evidence to suggest that a fair procedure might have led to dismissal, thereby justifying a percentage reduction in compensation under Polkey.
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Brauer Coley Ltd (in administration) [2007] IRLR 207 EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that where a trade union is successful in proceedings brought for failure to consult on collective redundancies, the protective award cannot be claimed by any employees in respect of whom the trade union was not recognised by the employer.
In Keeley v Fosroc International Ltd [2006] IRLR 961, the Court of Appeal held that a provision for enhanced redundancy payments set out in a staff handbook that was incorporated into the employment contract constituted an express term of the individual contract of employment, thus conferring a contractual right to the payment.
In McCormack v Sanmina SCI UK Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 138 (Jul) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that redundancy dismissals that were procedurally unfair due to a lack of proper consultation were also unfair because of the employer's inconsistent approach to the assessment of willingness to work overtime and employees' skills range.
In Alexander and another v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd [2006] IRLR 422 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that two employees were automatically unfairly dismissed in breach of the statutory dismissal procedure because the employer had not provided sufficient information about their selection for redundancy in advance of the dismissal meeting.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy.