Redundancy
The Court of Appeal holds in Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust that an employment tribunal was entitled to its conclusion that a reorganisation of the employee's duties to require him to carry out different work in part of his time, while it amounted to the imposition of unreasonable duties upon him which he had reasonably declined to carry out, did not mean that he was redundant.
In Middlesbrough Borough Council v Transport and General Workers' Union and another, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's finding of fact that an employer failed to consult representatives of two trade unions that it recognised, in respect of more than 100 employees whom it was proposing to make redundant within 90 days, about ways of avoiding the dismissals.
An employer that gave notice to terminate employees' existing contracts of employment, and offered to re-engage them on new terms, had a duty to consult employee representatives before imposing the new terms, holds the EAT in GMB v Man Truck & Bus UK Ltd.
In Scotch Premier Meat Ltd v Burns and others [2000] IRLR 639 EAT, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had not erred in holding that the employers were "proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees" within the meaning of s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, notwithstanding that, as an alternative option, they were considering selling the business as a going concern.
In Murray and another v Foyle Meats Ltd, the House of Lords holds that the language of the statutory definition of redundancy asks two questions of fact. The first is whether or not one or other of various states of economic affairs exists, and the second is whether or not the dismissal is attributable, wholly or mainly, to that state of affairs.
In Hill v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation plc, the Outer House of the Court of Session holds that there was no breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence when an employer made an employee redundant while he was in receipt of contractual sick pay and had a prospective contractual entitlement to long-term sickness benefit.
In Langston v Cranfield University, the EAT rules that an industrial tribunal determining a claim of unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy must consider as a matter of course whether there was unfair selection, lack of consultation or failure to seek alternative employment on the part of the employer.
The question of where an employee was employed for the purposes of the statutory definition of redundancy is to be answered primarily by a consideration of the factual circumstances which obtained until the dismissal, holds the Court of Appeal in High Table Ltd v Horst and others.
In deciding the fairness of a redundancy selection criterion based on employees' absence records, an industrial tribunal may consider whether the employer took account of the reasons for a particular employee's absence only as one of the factors to be considered in the circumstances of the case, and not as the conclusive factor, the EAT holds in Byrne v Castrol (UK) Ltd.
In Mugford v Midland Bank plc, the EAT reviews the current situation regarding redundancy consultation in the context of unfair dismissal, observing that consultation with the trade union over selection criteria does not of itself obviate the need for individual consultation.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy.