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 business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind ceased or diminished, or where they expected to cease or diminish? If so, (3) was the dismissal of the employee . . caused wholly or mainly by the state of affairs identified at stage 2 above.’ and ‘There may be a number of underlying causes leading to a true redundancy situation; our stage 2. There may be a need for economies; a reorganisation in the interests of efficiency; a reduction in production requirements; unilateral changes in the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. None of these factors are themselves determinative of the stage 2 question. The only question to be asked is was there a diminution/cessation in the employer’s requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or an expectation of such cessation/diminution in the future [redundancy]? At this stage it is irrelevant to consider the terms of the employee’s contract of employment. That will only be relevant, if at all, at stage 3 (assuming there is a dismissal). (2) At stage 3 the tribunal is concerned with causation. Was the dismissal attributable wholly or mainly to the redundancy?’
Citations:
[1997] UKEAT 168 – 96 – 2401, [1997] IRLR 200, [1997] ICR 523
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v Farnworth EAT 13-Jul-1998
The claimant employee said that the non-renewal of her fixed term contract was not a redundancy as alleged.
Held: It could still be a redundancy situation when an employee is dismissed because the organisation requires an employee with more . .
Approved – Murray and Another v Foyle Meats Ltd (Northern Ireland) HL 8-Jul-1999
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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207154
