Redundancy
In Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that a redundancy dismissal will usually be unfair if the employee was not warned or consulted prior to dismissal. But the Lords said there may be exceptions to this rule where the employer, at the time of dismissal, could reasonably take the view that consultation or warnings would be useless.
An employer had no right to withdraw unilaterally its employees' contractual entitlement to enhanced redundancy payments, holds the High Court in Lee and others v GEC Plessey Telecommunications.
British Coal had a statutory obligation to use a review procedure agreed with the trade unions in relation to proposed pit closures, holds the High Court in R v British Coal Corporation and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Vardy and others.
In De Grasse v Stockwell Tools Ltd [1992] IRLR 269 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant employee's dismissal on grounds of redundancy was fair, notwithstanding that there had been no prior consultation or warning.
In Allsop v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council [1992] 90 LGR 462 CA, the Court of Appeal held that payments made to employees by a local authority as compensation for redundancy under a voluntary severance scheme were unlawful as they exceeded the prescribed limits.
An industrial tribunal was entitled to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for unfair dismissal applications from redundant employees, who mistakenly believed that work would "pick up"; and they would be re-employed, until two weeks after the employer's business closed down.
In Prestwick Circuits Ltd v McAndrew [1990] IRLR 191 CS, the Court of Session held that the implied right to order a transfer from one place of employment to another must be subject to the implied qualification that reasonable notice must be given in all the circumstances of the case.
It was not unfair for a local education authority to dismiss three lecturers for redundancy without reference to their college's governors, even though their lecturers' contracts of employment contemplated that the governors would decide whether to dismiss.
Many collective agreements state that they are to be "binding in honour only". In Marley v Forward Trust Group Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that this applies between the parties to the agreement, ie the union and employer, and does not affect the legal enforceability of terms of collective agreements which are incorporated into contracts of employment of individuals.
In Transport & General Workers' Union v Ledbury Preserves (1928) Ltd [1985] IRLR 412 EAT, the EAT held that in a potential redundancy situation there must be "sufficient meaningful" consultation before notices of dismissal are sent out.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy.