EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
The Claimant was found (by the Court of Appeal) to have been unfairly dismissed by reason of failure to comply with Step 1 of the Standard Procedure. In all other respects the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Tribunal, which had been to the effect that the reason for dismissal was genuinely redundancy and that, on section 98(4) criteria, the dismissal was fair. In particular the Tribunal had found that the Claimant knew, prior to meetings at which his redundancy was discussed, that his employment was at risk. On remission, a Tribunal (which had to be freshly constituted) awarded loss on the basis that the Claimant’s length of service would have been increased by 2 weeks. The Claimant appealed on various grounds – in particular, that the Tribunal had to assume that the statutory procedure would be carried out beginning no earlier than the date of his dismissal.
Held – no error of law by the Tribunal. Mining Supplies (Longwall) Limited [1988] ICR 676 and Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews [2007] IRLR 568 applied.
Richardson J
[2012] UKEAT 0565 – 11 – 3004
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Mining Supplies (Longwall) Limited v Baker EAT 1988
The unfairness of the Claimant’s dismissal lay in the employer’s failure to consult with him over his impending redundancy before dismissing him. Had they done so, the result would have been the same but dismissal would have been deferred for a . .
Applied – Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc EAT 17-Jan-2007
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.459921