mitchells_tattersallEAT2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
Polkey deduction
REDUNDANCY – Fairness
The Respondent had made the applicant, who was one of five members of its senior management team (‘SMT’) redundant. The Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant had been wrongly dismissed, but ordered a Polkey reduction. In particular, it held: (i) the pool from which the Claimant had been selected consisted of five members (ii) the criteria by reference to which he had been selected, namely that losing him would cause least damage to the Respondent’s business was indefensibly subjective, (iii) the process by which the Claimant had been selected was unfair as no real consideration was given to making any of the other four members of the SMT redundant, (iv) the internal appeal process was unfair because it was determined by a person who had made a complaint about the Claimant, (v) that any compensation should be subject to a reduction of 20%.
Lord Neuberger MR
[2012] UKEAT 0605 – 11 – 2905
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Williams and Others v Compair Maxam Ltd EAT 22-Jan-1982
Four employees said that they had been dismissed for redundancy, and now appealed against rejection of their claims.
Held: The court set out the obligations on an employer in a redundancy situation, including the need to look for alternatives . .
Cited – Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Monte-D’Cruz EAT 1-Mar-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Claimant dismissed for redundancy following a reorganisation, having been interviewed for, but not offered, an alternative job – Tribunal holds dismissal to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.460389