(Jamaica) The company having been taken over summarily dismissed three employees who complained to their union, and the remaining workforce were called out on strike. There was a disagreement as to whether there was a genuine redundancy situation. The tribunal ordered the strike to cease, and for the employees to be re-instated.
Held: No estoppel was established against the employees by having cashed their redundancy cheques. The section allowed a mandatory re-instatement, although ‘Reinstatement does not necessarily require that the employee be placed at the same desk or machine or be given the same work in all respects as he or she had been given prior to the unjustifiable dismissal. If, moreover, in a particular case, there really is no suitable job into which the employee can be re-instated, the employer can immediately embark upon the process of dismissing the employee on the ground of redundancy, this time properly fulfilling his obligations of communication and consultation under the Code.’
References: [2005] UKPC 16
Links: Bailii, PC
Judges: Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
This case cites:
- Cited – Scarf v Jardine HL 13-Jun-1882 ([1882] 7 AC 345, [1882] UKLawRpAC 17, )
If there has been a conclusive election by the plaintiffs to adopt the liability of one of two persons, alternatively liable, they cannot afterwards make the other liable. The two claims are mutually exclusive or impossible in law. To establish an . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.223878
