EAT The claimants were employed by the respondents as cleaners. They worked at a ‘Zara’ store and were dismissed when that client required that they no longer work in their premises. They had been offered alternative employment at another store. They claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed. An Employment Tribunal upheld their claims, holding that the dismissals had been procedurally fair but that ‘a’ reasonable employer would have discussed the terms of the alternative job offer, considered whether the rate of pay could be increased, the hours altered and whether, at the end of their tenure of that cleaning contract, the claimants’ employment would transfer to the new contractor. On appeal, Tribunal’s judgment set aside and a finding of fair dismissal substituted. The Tribunal had erred: they had wrongly approached matters on the basis that all three claimants had made enquiries about whether TUPE would apply and in assuming that the respondents could, in any event, have answered those enquiries. Otherwise, on no view could it be said that no reasonable employer would have failed to consider taking the other steps referred to. Further, the Tribunal, in considering what ‘a’ reasonable employer would have done had failed to apply the correct test in law; they had not asked themselves whether it could be said that no reasonable employer would have failed to take the steps referred to.
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0043 – 07 – 0204
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Balmain, Liversidge, Liversidge v Atlas Cleaning Ltd EAT 4-Apr-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Case management
Employment Tribunal had refused to grant witness order on the application of Claimants in an unfair dismissal claim because (1) dismissal was admitted and so the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267424