The company decided to make redundancies. The applicants, all selected, had worked in more than one section of the plant. All employees worked under the same contract, but employees were chosen only from the one section. The complainants said that the entire workforce should have been considered.
Held: Under the Order it was for the employer to show the reason for the dismissal, that there was a reduced requirement, and that that led to the dismissal. The fallacy in the Nelson case was that ‘because the work which he was employed to do continued to exist, he was not redundant’. It is a question of fact, not law, as to whether the dismissal is attributable to the reduction in the requirement. The words of the Act should not be made more complicated than they are. Section 139(1)(b) was simple: ‘It asks two questions of fact. The first is whether one or other of various states of economic affairs exists. In this case, the relevant one is whether the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have diminished. . . In the present case, the tribunal found as a fact that the requirements of the business for employees to work in the slaughter hall had diminished. . . That, in my opinion, is the end of the matter.’
Lord Clyde: ‘The requirements of the business may call for a particular number of employees and for employees of particular skills and abilities.’
Lord Chancellor, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde
Times 09-Jul-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999, [1999] UKHL 30, [2000] 1 AC 51, [1999] 3 ALL ER 769, [1999] 3 WLR 356, [1999] NI 291, [1999] ICR 827, [1999] IRLR 562
House of Lords, Bailii
Employment Rights Act 1996 98(2)(c) 139(1)(b)(i), Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976 No. 1043) 22, Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 11(2)
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 1977
Mr Nelson was employed as a producer but had in fact been engaged in the Caribbean Service of the BBC in terms of the work which he had actually been doing. The contract of employment expressly provided that he should serve wherever and however he . .
Approved – Safeway Stores Plc v Burrell EAT 24-Jan-1997
The tribunal set out the test for whether a dismissal was for redundancy: ‘Free of authority, we understand the statutory framework . . involve a three-stage process: (1) was the employee dismissed: If so, (2) had the requirements of the employer’s . .
Cited by:
Cited – Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust CA 21-Jun-2001
The claimant doctor had been dismissed. He said it was unfairly, and the Trust replied that he had been made redundant ‘for some other reason’ since he had nt acceted new conditions of work.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed. The EAT had . .
Cited – Victoria and Albert Museum v Durrant EAT 5-Jan-2011
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reason for dismissal including some other substantial reason
The correct interpretation of section 106 of Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the Act’) was considered.
The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Slee EAT 19-Jul-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination
The Claimant was employed as a Magistrates’ Clerk and she brought successful claims to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.159014