The claimant doctor had been dismissed. He said it was unfairly, and the Trust replied that he had been made redundant ‘for some other reason’ since he had nt acceted new conditions of work.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed. The EAT had re-iterated the conclusion that there had been no diminution of the need for the appropriate kind of work. There was no rule that a re-organisation could not lead to a redundancy. It was a question of the facts in each circumstance.
Judges:
Walker LJ, Longmore LJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 954
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 139(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust EAT 14-Jul-1999
A doctor claimed that he had been dismissed unfairly for redundancy and his employers claimed that since he had not accepted new conditions he had been dismissed fairly for some other reason. The Tribunal held that he had been dismissed for . .
Cited – Murray and Another v Foyle Meats Ltd (Northern Ireland) HL 8-Jul-1999
The company decided to make redundancies. The applicants, all selected, had worked in more than one section of the plant. All employees worked under the same contract, but employees were chosen only from the one section. The complainants said that . .
Cited – Safeway Stores Plc v Burrell EAT 24-Jan-1997
The tribunal set out the test for whether a dismissal was for redundancy: ‘Free of authority, we understand the statutory framework . . involve a three-stage process: (1) was the employee dismissed: If so, (2) had the requirements of the employer’s . .
Cited – Robinson v British Island Airways Ltd EAT 1978
The claimant was a flight operations manager answerable to a general manager, operations and traffic. The employer re-organised abolishing both posts to one job of operations manager, with different tasks, new responsibilities and enhanced status . .
Cited – Murphy v Epsom College CA 1984
The College replaced a plumber who could do the work of a heating engineer with a heating engineer who could do plumbing work. The number of employees and the work remained the same.
Held: The dismissal was by reason of redundancy because the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147586