EAT Unfair Dismissal – Polkey deduction.
The ET had found basic failings in the way the employers had sought to change employment contracts. This led to constructive dismissals and a finding of unfair dismissal by the Tribunal. But it was held that even if proper consultation had occurred, the employees would not have accepted the fundamental changes which the employers were seeking to introduce into their contracts, and that all they had lost was the period during which consultation would have occurred, which the Tribunal found to be was 4 months. The Tribunal accordingly limited the compensatory award to that period.
Held: The employment tribunal was justifiably drawing on its own industrial experience not in order to speculate, but rather to provide a ‘framework which is a working hypothesis about what would have occurred had the Respondent behaved differently and fairly’.
Judges:
His Honour Judge McMullen QC
Citations:
UKEAT/0458/05, [2005] UKEAT 0458 – 05 – 2211
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Propertycare Ltd v T Gower and others EAT 14-Nov-2003
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Gover and others v Propertycare Ltd CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for unfair dismissal, on the basis that they had been substantially dismissed as sales agents after rejecting conditions imposed unilaterally by their employers. Their damages had been limited to the . .
Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236494
