The employee had been made redundant with no attempt at consultation and in breach of procedures.
Held: His claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed because even if the procedures had been followed, the result would have been the same. What mattered was whether the employer had behaved reasonably. There was a vital distinction in that regard between the reasons for the dismissal and the procedures adopted. The Tribunal must investigate the effect of any non-compliance with procedure on the part of the employer.
Neill and Nicholls LJJ, Sir George Waller
[1987] 1 All ER 984, [1987] 1 WLR 1147, [1987] IRLR 503
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – British Labour Pump Co Ltd v Byrne EAT 1979
The respondent had been dismissed for misconduct on the morning of the day on which he was dismissed. There had been previous misbehaviour but the industrial tribunal held that the case had to be determined on the basis of what had happened on that . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited HL 19-Nov-1987
Mr Polkey was employed as a driver. The company decided to replace four van drivers with two van salesmen and a representative. Mr Polkey and two other van drivers were made redundant. Without warning, he was called in and informed that he had been . .
Cited – Campbell v Dunoon HA OHCS 1993
. .
Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council CA 11-Feb-2004
Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately . .
Cited – Market Force (Uk) Ltd v A D Hunt EAT 10-Apr-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
Cited – M Iqbal v Consignia Plc EAT 5-Dec-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
The claimant had had his claims for discrimination rejected. He was found to have been unfairly dismissed, but with nil compensation because of what was found to . .
Cited – Rowstock Ltd v Jessemey EAT 5-Mar-2013
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
AGE DISCRIMINATION – Dismissal
VICTIMISATION – Post-employment
FACTS
The employee was dismissed on grounds of retirement, having reached an age over . .
Cited – Granchester Construction (Eastern) Ltd v Attrill EAT 14-Jan-2013
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Compensation
Polkey deduction
A Tribunal found that an employee who had left site an hour and a half or so early on two consecutive days and subsequently had submitted time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.194621
