Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Friday, 18 January 2013 12:18

Redundancy case 2012: Top 5 @ #4 Capita v Byard

Written by  Philip Hyland
Rate this item
(1 Vote)
Usefully summarises the principles involved for A Tribunal where pooling for redundancy is involved.

It is not the function of the [Employment] Tribunal to decide whether they would have thought it fairer to act in some other way: the question is whether the dismissal lay within the range of conduct which a reasonable employer could have adopted" (per Browne-Wilkinson J in Williams v Compair Maxam Limited [1982] IRLR 83 [18];

(b) "[9]...the courts were recognising that the reasonable response test was applicable to the selection of the pool from which the redundancies were to be drawn" (per Judge Reid QC in Hendy Banks City Print Limited v Fairbrother and Others (UKEAT/0691/04/TM);

(c) "There is no legal requirement that a pool should be limited to employees doing the same or similar work. The question of how the pool should be defined is primarily a matter for the employer to determine. It would be difficult for the employee to challenge it where the employer has genuinely applied his mind [to] the problem" (per Mummery J in Taymech v Ryan [1994] EAT/663/94);

(d) The Employment Tribunal is entitled, if not obliged, to consider with care and scrutinise carefully the reasoning of the employer to determine if he has "genuinely applied" his mind to the issue of who should be in the pool for consideration for redundancy; and that

(e) Even if the employer has genuinely applied his mind to the issue of who should be in the pool for consideration for redundancy, then it will be difficult, but not impossible, for an employee to challenge it.

Philip Hyland

Philip Hyland

Philip Hyland

Website: www.pjhlaw.co.uk E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Login to post comments

Blog - Search

Blog - Recent Comments