The tribunal considered the use of the word ‘procedural’ in the Polkey, and doubted whether Lord Bridge could have meant to classify matters such as the choice of a pool for redundancy, or the adoption of criteria for selection as procedural as opposed to substantive: ‘In any given case, therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the unfairness can properly be classified as procedural or substantive.’
 IRLR 515
England and Wales
Cited – 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 – Lambe v 186K Ltd CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been dismissed for redundancy, but the company had been found not to have consulted him properly, and he had therefore been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal had then found that even if consulted the result would not have been . .
Cited – King v Eaton Ltd (No 2) IHCS 1998
Employees were made redundant. The tribunal held the dismissals to be unfair because that there had been no consultation worthy of the name with any of the employees and because it was impossible to decide whether the selection criteria had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200300