The respondents had decided to make redundancies. They had two shifts of workers, and those eventually selected came predominantly from the one shift. The question was whether the method chosen for selection was fair or unfair. In cases of mass redundancy, it would only be in rare and exceptional cases if the assessment fought with other employees not made redundant will be relevant. The assessments had been made by qualified assessors, whose evidence had been accepted. It therefore appeared that selection had been made without reference to the shift on which they worked. No error of law or perversity in finding had been shown.
EAT Redundancy – Fairness
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown
Citations:
EAT/353/00, [2001] UKEAT 353 – 00 – 0309
Links:
Citing:
Cited – FDR Ltd v Holloway EAT 26-Apr-1995
Appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal that FDR, Respondents to proceedings brought by Mr Holloway claiming unfair selection for redundancy, should provide discovery of specified documents and further particulars relating to Mr . .
Cited – British Aerospace plc v Green and Others CA 18-Apr-1995
The employer was to make 530 members of its staff redundant. Each staff member was assessed and scored. The claimants said that the method of selection was unfair, and sought disclosure of the scores of all employees.
Held: It was wrong to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168297