EAT REDUNDANCY – Exclusion
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasons for dismissal including substantial other reason
Polkey deduction
For economic reasons the employer needed to make cuts in administration and accounts staff. It lumped together in one pool employees of more than one kind and applied a generic scoring matrix, expressing a willingness to retrain those who scored well in the matrix. The Employment Tribunal was not satisfied that the employer had proved that the dismissal of the Claimants was for redundancy.
Held: applying the two-stage Murray v Foyle Meats test, the ET should have found that the reason was redundancy. There was a diminution in the employer’s requirements for employees to carry out particular kinds of work; the dismissals were attributable to that diminution; the disparate and unsatisfactory nature of the pool did not affect that conclusion.
The ET had however, made in the alternative compelling findings as to why the dismissal, even if for redundancy, was unfair. Appeal concerning unfair dismissal dismissed.
The ET said that there was ‘no evidence’ on which to make a Polkey deduction. There was evidence – including the established need to make cuts, the reduction in the workforce and some evidence specific to the accounts staff. Remitted to the Tribunal to consider the evidence and give reasons. Software 2000 v Andrews applied.
David Richardson J
[2013] UKEAT 0525 – 12 – 2304
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511055