EAT REDUNDANCY – Definition
A contention that where an employee was dismissed in consequence of a downturn of business, and the introduction of new accounting software, both of which caused a lessening of the requirement of the employer for employees to do book-keeping work (in this case an employee, since only one did that work) there was no dismissal by reason of redundancy, because the EAT decision of Aylward required a reduction in headcount as a necessary factor, was rejected. Aylward would not be followed, since it was inconsistent with previous Court of Appeal observations, and had erroneously relied upon a misunderstanding of observations of HHJ Peter Clark in Safeway v Burrell.
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0017 – 12 – 1605
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461858