Redundancy

New and updated

• Date:

  1 August 1999

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Definition of redundancy entails factual inquiry

  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.

• Date:

  15 January 1999

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Contracts of employment: Employer was entitled to make long-term sick employee redundant

  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.

• Date:

  15 April 1998

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Application of reasonableness test in redundancy cases

  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.

• Date:

  1 October 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Factual test for determining place of employment approved

  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.

• Date:

  1 May 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Fair redundancy selection based on absence records

  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.

• Date:

  1 May 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Individual consultation not a prerequisite for fair dismissal

  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.

• Date:

  15 April 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: New three-stage test for redundancy

  In Safeway Stores plc v Burrell, the EAT rejects both the "contract test" and the "function test" for determining whether an employee was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

• Date:

  15 March 1997

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: "Sham" appeal process rendered selection unfair

  An assessment system under which employees were selected for redundancy without individual consultation on the basis of undisclosed marks awarded by their employer gave employees no meaningful opportunity to challenge the decisions made, holds the EAT in John Brown Engineering Ltd v Brown and others.

• Date:

  1 November 1996

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Redundancy: Relevance of "Compair Maxam guidelines"

  In Akzo Coatings plc v Thompson and others, the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal erred in law in applying the guidelines on redundancy selection in Williams and others v Compair Maxam Ltd to the way in which an employer dealt with the possibility of alternative employment for redundant employees.

• Date:

  15 June 1996

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Implied terms: No implied contractual right to enhanced redundancy pay

  In Quinn and others v Calder Industrial Materials Ltd the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's ruling that the employer was not in breach of contract by failing to make enhanced redundancy payments to redundant employees.