header-logo header-logo

Free choice?

09 September 2011 / John McMullen
Issue: 7480 / Categories: Features , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail
hires_0_4

John McMullen examines fairness in redundancy selection cases

In unfair dismissal law it is axiomatic in redundancy cases that an employer must develop objective selection criteria and apply them fairly (Williams v Compair Maxam [1982] ICR 156, [1982] IRLR 83). This article examines what controls on managerial prerogative exist in this area.

Primary rule

The primary rule is that the employer must use a method of selection which is fair in general terms and is applied reasonably (Eaton v King and Others [1995] IRLR 75 (EAT); [1996] IRLR 199 (CA)). As the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) stated in Greig v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Son Northern (Ltd) [1979] IRLR 372 “…in considering the reasonableness of a redundancy dismissal, where a selection has to be made between those who are to be retained and those who are to be dismissed, the most important matter upon which the employer has to satisfy the tribunal is that he acted reasonably in respect of the selection of the particular employee. That normally involves

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll