EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons
REDUNDANCY – Fairness
Automatic unfair dismissal – section 152 TULRCA 1992 – reason for dismissal – ET approach – adequacy of reasons
Unfair dismissal – section 98(4) ERA 1996 – fairness of dismissal by reason of redundancy – ET approach
The ET had dismissed the Claimant’s claims of automatic unfair dismissal and unfair dismissal for the purposes of section 98 ERA. The Claimant appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal in part
Although the ET had not made a clear finding as to the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal it could be implied that it accepted it was by reason of redundancy and it was apparent it had not found that it was related to her trade union activities; the appeal in this regard was dismissed.
When approaching the question of fairness, the ET had taken the view this was not a case in which it needed to follow the guidance laid down in Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] IRLR 83 EAT; those principles did not apply because the question was not why the Claimant had been selected for redundancy as much as why she had not been appointed to one of the remaining positions (see Morgan v Welsh Rugby Union [2011] IRLR 376 EAT). In adopting this approach, however, the ET had elevated Morgan to a proposition of law, which it expressly did not lay down. It had, further, adopted a blinkered approach to section 98(4) ERA and failed to demonstrate it had adopted a range of reasonable responses test, reviewing each stage of the Respondent’s decision making and process. That rendered the ET’s conclusions on unfair dismissal under section 98 ERA unsafe; the appeal would therefore be allowed.
Judges:
Eady QC HHJ
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0157 – 16 – 1003
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582059
