EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Polkey deduction
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action Requirements,
‘Automatic’ unfair dismissal for redundancy by reason of non-compliance with statutory procedure – Jobs found to have genuinely disappeared, but employer found to have made no proper attempt to find alternative employment – Issue whether Claimants would have found/accepted alternative employment even if the employer had acted fairly – Tribunal declined to consider making ‘Polkey’ deduction on basis of the inadequacy of the evidence and awarded an uplift of 40%
On the Polkey issue, held that Tribunal not entitled to decline to consider making a deduction – Software 2000 v Andrews [2007] ICR 825 considered – Discussion of burden of proof in alternative employment cases.
On the uplift issue, held that the Tribunal had failed to assess the culpability of the non-compliance and had approached the issue too mechanistically – McKindless Group v. McLaughlin [2008] IRLR 678 applied
Citations:
[2009] UKEAT 0539 – 08 – 3103
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews etc EAT 17-Jan-2007
EAT Four employees successfully established before the Employment Tribunal that they had been unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal found that there had been procedural defects. In particular the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Wardle v Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank CA 11-May-2011
The claimant had been found to have been unlawfully dismissed and to have suffered nationality discrimination. Each party appealed against aspects of the compensatory award including the application of the statutory uplift, and the calculation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.328010
