The court considered the test for reasonableness in a procedure for selection for redundancy. Peter Clarke J said: ‘As to whether a reasonable employer would or would not consult with an individual employee is, it seems to us, essentially a question of fact for the industrial jury, properly directing itself.’ and ‘It is in these circumstances that consultation between the employer and individuals identified for redundancy becomes important. It should normally take place before a final decision to dismiss is reached. It gives the employee an opportunity to put his case to the manager carrying out the selection, so that the latter may reach a fully informed decision.’ He summarised the authorities: ‘Where no consultation about redundancy has taken place with either the trade union or the employee the dismissal will normally be unfair, unless the industrial tribunal finds that a reasonable employer would have concluded that consultation would be an utterly futile exercise in the particular circumstances of the case . . It will be a question of fact and degree for the industrial tribunal to consider whether consultation with the individual and/or his union was so inadequate as to render the dismissal unfair. A lack of consultation in any particular respect will not automatically lead to that result. The overall picture must be viewed by the tribunal up to the date of termination to ascertain whether the employer has or has not acted reasonably in dismissing the employee on the grounds of redundancy.’
Judges:
Judge Peter Clark
Citations:
[1997] UKEAT 760 – 96 – 2301, [1997] IRLR 208, [1997] ICR 399
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Green v A and I Fraser (Wholesale Fish Merchants) Ltd EAT 1985
EAT One of four drivers was to be made redundant. The claimant had the shortest service and was selected on this basis. He said that another employee, with occasional driving duties and shorter service should . .
Cited by:
Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
Cited – Rothwell v Pelikan Hardcopy Scotland Ltd EAT 23-Sep-2005
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Procedural fairness
The claimant, who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and . .
Cited – P Byrne v Arvin Meritor LVS (UK) Ltd EAT 22-Jan-2003
EAT The appellant had taken a temporary promotion with re-assurances that on completion he would return to his former position. That old role disappeared during the period. The temporary role finished early and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207134
