The employee was dismissed on refusing to accept new terms and conditions which were proposed to bring into line the terms and conditions of employees in their original business with those of employees, including the claimant, of another business taken over by the employers. The proposed new terms were financially and otherwise to his detriment. The Industrial Tribunal held there had been an unfair dismissal holding in reliance on Chubb Fire Security Ltd v Harper [1983] IRLR 311 that the question which fell to be considered was: ‘whether the respondents were acting reasonably in deciding that the advantages to them of implementing the proposed reorganisation outweighed any disadvantage which they should have contemplated that the applicant might suffer.’ The IT concluded: ‘The offer as made to the applicant was unduly disadvantageous to him as compared with any advantage to the respondents . . no matter how one looks at it he was worse off under the offered terms and he was entitled to reject them.’
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. The complaint of unfair dismissal had not been made out. ‘The Industrial Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants had acted unreasonably in dismissing the respondent for refusing to accept changes in his terms and conditions of employment which would bring him into line with existing employees holding similar positions, on the grounds that he would be worse off under the new terms. The Industrial Tribunal had misdirected themselves in law in interpreting the EAT’s decision in Chubb Fire Security v. Harper as indicating that the sole question to be answered was whether the appellants had acted reasonably in deciding that the advantages to them of implementing the proposed changes outweighed any disadvantages which they should have contemplated that the respondent might suffer.’
and ‘In determining whether an employer has acted reasonably in dismissing an employee who refuses to agree to changes in his terms and conditions of employment consequent upon a reorganisation, Industrial Tribunals should confine themselves to the question posed under s.57(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, ie whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, having regard to the reasons shown by the employer, depends on whether, in the circumstances, the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee and that question should be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. When that question has had to be considered in other cases, Industrial Tribunals have approached it on the basis of considering the range of responses open to an employer in the circumstances and if the action taken by the employer to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of an employer in a similar situation, then the dismissal is fair, provided all the other requirements are complied with. The task of weighing the advantages to the employer against the disadvantages to the employee is merely one factor which the Tribunal have to take into account in determining the question in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. It does not follow that because there are disadvantages to the employee, the employer acted unreasonably in treating his refusal to accept the changes as a reason for dismissing him.’
Judges:
Beldam J
Citations:
[1985] IRLR179
Statutes:
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, 1978 57(1)
Cited by:
Cited – St John of God (Care Services) Ltd v Brooks and others EAT 8-Apr-1992
The appellant had suffered a reduction in its income. It made an offer to staff, on the point of dismissing for refusal to sign, of less favourable terms, including reduced pay and holiday entitlement and the abolition of overtime rates for weekend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.374118
