Redundancy
In Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK Ry and others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy [2009] IRLR 944 ECJ, the ECJ held that an employer's duty under the Collective Redundancies Directive to consult workers' representatives about the possibility of redundancies arises when strategic decisions or changes in activities make the employer contemplate or plan for collective redundancies.
In Lomond Motors Ltd v Clark EATS/0019/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had erred in finding a dismissal unfair on the grounds that the redundancy selection pool had been incorrectly drawn. The tribunal had substituted its own view for that of a reasonable employer. The tribunal had further erred in its assessment of compensation.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers unfair dismissal and pension loss.
In Rolls-Royce plc v Unite [2009] EWCA Civ 387 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a redundancy selection matrix set out in a 2003 collective agreement was not automatically rendered unlawful following the implementation of the age discrimination legislation in 2006.
In Rolls-Royce v Unite [2008] EWHC 2420 HC, the High Court held that two collective agreements that set out an approach to redundancy giving points for length of service in the selection process were lawful under the age discrimination legislation.
In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, when deciding whether or not a redundant employee's refusal of an offer of suitable alternative employment is reasonable, an employment tribunal is entitled to take into account the degree of suitability of the new job.
In Ralph Martindale & Co Ltd v Harris EAT/0166/07, the EAT held that a redundancy dismissal was unfair where the process for deciding who should be offered an alternative post involved no objective criteria and no attempt to assess the candidates against a job description. It was unfair for the employer to rely mainly on a subjective assessment of whose management style would best suit the new post.
In Davies v Farnborough College of Technology [2008] IRLR 14, the EAT held that a dismissal that involved a breach of step two of the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedure was automatically unfair, even though a full and proper appeal had been heard. The tribunal was wrong to find that the appeal "cured" the defect in the original hearing. However, it was clear that a dismissal would have occurred even if the procedure had been properly followed, so the compensatory award was set at zero.
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy.