Redundancy; fairness; laid down the 'Compair Maxam' guidelines: warning, consultation, criteria, alternative work. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Unfair dismissal; compensation; if a dismissal is procedurally unfair but the employee would have been dismissed anyway, compensation is reduced. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Redundancy; the three-stage test: (1) was the employee dismissed? (2) had the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind ceased or diminished? (3) was the dismissal caused by that state of affairs? [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Redundancy; the classic definition: a redundancy situation exists if the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have ceased or diminished. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Unfair dismissal; redundancy; competitive selection for a new post in a reorganised structure, where an employer may legitimately use subjective as well as objective criteria. Cited in London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett [2026] EAT 77 at [87] for the practice that a tribunal's written reasons in a majority decision should set out the reasoning of the minority. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Redundancy; unfair dismissal; consultation; Polkey. The tribunal found a redundancy dismissal with no consultation, dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and yet awarded compensation. Failure to consult will often render a dismissal unfair, and a tribunal finding such a dismissal fair would be expected to say why [6]. On the tribunal's findings the only available conclusion was unfair dismissal: Lady Poole substituted that finding without remitting [9], [26]. The compensatory award of two weeks' pay stood. Consultation at a formative stage might affect whether a person is made redundant, but it was for the tribunal to find what would have happened in this case, and its findings were adequate [18]-[19].
Redundancy; collective consultation; s.188 TULRCA 1992; meaning of proposing to dismiss; pool and individual consultation. The tribunal misread UQ v Marclean as requiring it to look backwards and forwards and aggregate dismissals: Marclean concerns the meaning of collective redundancies in Article 1 of the Directive, not when an employer is contemplating them, and s.188 asks what the employer was proposing for the future [55], [60], [64]. Later dismissals may still support an inference of an earlier proposal [61]. The duty is owed only in respect of employees with a contract with the respondent: a de facto employer of group staff is not enough [74], [76]. No single unified proposal is required: separate departmental decisions can amount to the employer proposing [85]. The findings of unfair dismissal, for failing to consider a pool of two and for inadequate consultation, stood [106], [110]-[111]. The s.188 issues and the protected period were remitted to the same tribunal [112]-[113], [115].
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.