EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Claimant dismissed for redundancy following a reorganisation, having been interviewed for, but not offered, an alternative job – Tribunal holds dismissal to have been unfair because there was inadequate consultation and because the criteria applied in interviewing for the potential alternative role were unsatisfactory, in particular because they were ‘subjective’.
HELD, allowing the appeal, that there was no basis for the finding of inadequate consultation; and that the Tribunal’s criticisms of the interview process for the alternative role were not such as to render the dismissal unfair (observations in Morgan v Welsh Rugby Union [2011] IRLR 376 applied) and that it had wrongly substituted its own judgment of the Claimant’s suitability for the role for the Appellant’s.
Underhill P J
[2012] UKEAT 0039 – 11 – 0103
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morgan v The Welsh Rugby Union EAT 7-Jan-2011
EAT Unfair dismissal – redundancy – selection for new role – fairness
The Claimant was made redundant by the Respondent consequent upon a re-organisation. He, along with others, applied for a new post . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mitchells of Lancaster (Brewers) Ltd v Tattersall EAT 29-May-2012
mitchells_tattersallEAT2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reasonableness of dismissal
Polkey deduction
REDUNDANCY – Fairness
The Respondent had made the applicant, who was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.451780