The court considered selection procedures in redundancy situations. Stamp LJ said: ‘It may be hard on employers in the embarrassing situation in which Mr Benfield [the employer] found himself in this case to have the matter so largely removed out of their control and left to the discretion of the so-called industrial jury. But once the case falls within [Section 98(4)] then the tribunal is entitled to take everything into account.’
and ‘but it does not in the least follow . . that when coming to consider under subsection (6) whether the employers had acted reasonably or unreasonably in the circumstances, it is not open to the tribunal to take into account as one of the matters affecting that question that fact that if the employers had to make a painful choice between selecting one employee or another for dismissal, it is, other things being equal, generally regarded as fair to retain the services of that employee who has been longest in service.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Stamp
Citations:
[1977] ICR 821
Statutes:
Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 98(4)
Cited by:
Cited – Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd EAT 10-Nov-1999
An employee did not return to work after a presentation to him of a good service award, because he had drunk alcohol. A new policy required staff not to return to work after consuming alcohol, but had also said that alcohol would not be provided. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.374399
