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 other short term roles were offered. The nearest equivalent role was offered but iin a different city. He rejected it and was made redundant. He now appealed against rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal. He said that the Tribunal had failed to set out its reasoning properly.
Held: The tribunal had failed, when discussing ‘bumping’ of employees on redundancy, to distinguish beween vacant and non-vacant positions. However no different result could follow.
EAT Redundancy – Fairness.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)
Citations:
EAT/239/02, [2003] EAT 239 – 02 – 2201, [2003] UKEAT 239 – 02 – 2201
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 – Mugford v Midland Bank Plc EAT 23-Jan-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180605