The court discussed whether, having found errors in the employer’s dismissal of the emploee, the tribunal can take into account other circumstances to say that the employee might have been dismissed in any event.
Held: Sir Hugh Griffiths said: ‘We are unable to accept the submission that ‘the circumstances’ are limited to those directly affecting the ground of dismissal, in the sense submitted by [counsel for the employers], ‘The circumstances’ embrace all relevant matters that should weigh with a good employer when deciding at a given moment in time whether or not he should dismiss his employee. The subsection [section 24(6) of the Industrial Relations Act 1971] is focusing the tribunal’s attention upon ‘the dismissal’, that is, the dismissal on March 2. The question they have to ask themselves is whether on March 2 the employers were acting reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee on that date. The tribunal are entitled to take into account all the circumstances affecting both the employers and the employee at the time of the dismissal. In the present case, no doubt the time would have come when the employers would have to dismiss the employee for redundancy for the good of the company as a whole, but the tribunal were fully entitled to take the view that that moment had not yet arrived by March 2. The employers had not yet done that which in all fairness and reason they should do, namely, to make the obvious attempt to see if the employee could be placed somewhere else within this large group. The position is somewhat analogous to the case of a warning. An employer may have good grounds for thinking that a man is not capable of doing his job properly, but in the general run of cases it will not be reasonable for him to regard that lack of capability as a sufficient reason for dismissing him until he is given a warning so that the man has a chance to show if he can do better. So in this case there was a redundancy situation but there was no compelling reason why the axe should fall until the employers had done their best to help the employee. It is therefore with satisfaction that we find that there is nothing in the wording of section 24(6) of the Act of 1971 which compels us to take the view that behaviour which we think most people would consider manifestly unfair is nevertheless to be deemed fair under the Act. If the employers had made all reasonable attempts to place the employee in the group and had failed, then the time might have come when it would be reasonable for them to regard the redundancy as a sufficient reason for the dismissal, but until that moment had come the tribunal were entitled to take the view that it was not reasonable to dismiss for redundancy and accordingly that it was unfair.’
Judges:
Sir Hugh Griffiths
Citations:
[1974] ICR 1, [1973] IRLR 363
Statutes:
Industrial Relations Act 1971 24(6)
Cited by:
Endorsed – W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins HL 6-Jul-1977
The ‘just and equitable’ test warranted the reduction or extinction of compensation for an employee who has been unfairly dismissed and then found to have been liable to summary dismissal. ‘The paragraph does not, nor did s. 116 of the Act of 1971, . .
Approved – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.441860
