redundancy
-
Pinewood Repro Ltd T/A County Print v Page UKEAT/0028/10/SM
Appeal against ET decision that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed in relation to redundancy. The appeal focussed on the Tribunal’s findings that the respondent had failed to conduct adequate or effective consultation with the claimant by reason of their failure to provide him with an adequate explanation of why he had received lower scores than the two other people in the pool for redundancy, and also the Tribunal’s decision not to make a Polkey deduction. The EAT found that the conclusion the ET came to was simply that the matters relied on by the assessors to mark down the claimant were patently challengeable. On the Polkey issue they agreed with the Tribunal’s analysis there was a reasonable chance that he would not have been dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
14/10/2010 15:34
-
Semple Fraser LLP v Daly UKEATS/0045/09/BI
Appeal against decision by the ET that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. The ET re-marked the scores of the 2 employees at risk of redundancy, found them to be equal and concluded that the claimant had therefore been unfairly dismissed. The EAT disagreed and said that it was not open to the ET to re-mark the scores. Further, if equal scores made dismissal unfair for the claimant, so it would for the other employee. Also, even if different scores could have been reached by another employer that does not show that the respondent acted unreasonably. Appeal allowed and a finding of fair dismissal was substituted.
- cases
05/10/2010 16:14
-
Hammonds LLP & Ors v Mwitta UKEAT/0026/10/ZT
Appeal against decision that the claimant was discriminated against by reason of race, and that she had also been unfairly dismissed. Both appeals succeeded: the race discrimination claim was ordered to be re-heard before a different Tribunal, the unfair dismissal ruling was set aside.
- cases
05/10/2010 16:14
-
Watkins v Jeanette Crouch T/A Temple Bird Solicitors UKEAT/0145/10/ZT
Appeal against a finding by the Tribunal that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed following a redundancy exercise. The EAT found that the Tribunal had not addressed in its decision in any meaningful way the case which was advanced on the claimants’ behalf and thus the ruling could not stand. Appeal succeeded and matter remitted to a different Tribunal for a rehearing.
- cases
16/09/2010 16:09
-
Simpson v Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd & Ors UKEAT/0544/09/DA
Appeal against finding that the claimant’s redundancy during maternity leave was not automatic unfair dismissal. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
31/08/2010 14:38
-
Prowse-Piper v Anglian Windows Ltd & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 428
Appeal by the respondent employer that the claimant, whose complaints of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal had already been upheld, should not be given the opportunity to claim sex discrimination relating to the respondent’s failure to offer her alternative employment following a genuine redundancy situation. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
26/08/2010 10:50
-
Thomson v London Borough of Haringey UKEAT/0318/09/LA
Appeal against decision by the ET that the claimant had not been unfairly dismissed as Step 1 of the now repealed statutory disciplinary procedures had been complied with. The EAT agreed with the ET that, although the email, arranging a Step 2 meeting, was not sufficient alone to comply with Step 1, when it was read in conjunction with previous communication, the claimant was well aware that she was at risk of redundancy. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
20/08/2010 09:47
-
Worrall & Ors v Wilmott Dixon Partnerships Ltd & Anor UKEAT/0521/09/DM
Appeal against Tribunal's decision ruling that the claimant was not entitled to an enhanced voluntary redundancy benefit of 'added years' since the regulations which awarded it had been removed by more recent regulations. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
09/07/2010 15:31
-
Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie UKEAT/0024/10/ZT
Appeal by respondent against a ruling by the ET that a cap preventing employees, who had been made redundant, from recovering more than they would have earned if they had remained in employment until retirement age, was unjustifiable and accordingly that it constituted unlawful discrimination contrary to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 . Appeal allowed: since the purpose of the scheme was to compensate employees for the loss of the expectation of remaining in employment, to impose a cap preventing the “windfall” of an employee recovering more than he could have recovered had he stayed in employment until retirement necessarily constituted a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
- cases
08/07/2010 21:28
-
Arkley v Sea Fish Industry Authority UKEAT/0505/09/JOJ
Appeal by claimant concerning the proper construction of a contractual term as to enhanced redundancy pay. Appeal allowed and remitted to ET for assessment of compensation.
- cases
28/04/2010 10:09