ARTICLE
1 October 2012

Game Over For Packman - Reduction In Headcount Not Always Required For Redundancy

WB
Wedlake Bell

Contributor

Wedlake Bell logo
We are a contemporary London law firm, rooted in tradition with a lasting legacy of client service. Founded in 1780, we recognise the long-standing relationships we have with our clients and how they have helped shape our past and provide a platform for our future. With 76 partners supported by over 300 lawyers and support staff, we operate on a four practice group model: private client, business services, real estate and dispute resolution. Our driving force is to empower our clients by providing quality legal advice, insight and intelligence that enables them to achieve their goals whether personal or business. We are large enough to advise on the most complex matters, but small enough to ensure that our people and our work remain exceptional and dynamic. Building relationships is at the heart of everything we do.
Employers can find themselves in a tricky situation where they have a reduction in work but still require the same number of employees.
United Kingdom Employment and HR

Employers can find themselves in a tricky situation where they have a reduction in work but still require the same number of employees. Can they oblige employees to reduce their hours or does this trigger a redundancy situation?  In the case of Packman v Fauchon the Employment Appeals Tribunal ("EAT") has held that a requirement to reduce hours but not headcount can amount to redundancy. The consequence is that an employee who does not accept a reduction in hours and is dismissed may be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. 

Ms Fauchon was employed to provide book-keeping services to Packman Lucas Associates ("Packman").  Packman introduced an accountancy software system which, combined with a downturn in business, led to a significant reduction in the number of hours Packman required her to work.  

Packman could not persuade Ms Fauchon to agree to a reduction in her hours and she was dismissed on the grounds that there was no longer any need for her to work her contractual hours.  Ms Fauchon did not receive a redundancy payment on the basis that, even though there was a reduction in the amount of work there was in fact no reduction in the number of employees required to carry out the work. 

The EAT confirmed that Packman had run out of credit and that Ms Fauchon's dismissal was on the grounds of redundancy as headcount does not necessarily need to be reduced to satisfy the definition of redundancy, provided that there was an overall diminution in the requirement "for employees to carry out work of a particular kind".  In the judgment, the President remarked that where the hours of two full time employees are reduced to 50% but both continue working, there is deemed to be a reduction in headcount measured by full-time equivalent. 

Where there is a significant reduction in working hours of say, 50%, there is a strong likelihood that this will create a redundancy situation. Anything less is open to debate.  Employers need to be aware of this risk as it may affect the way a reorganisation process is run. An attempt to save some staffing budget may actually result in significant redundancy costs as employees ask for severance rather than accept reduced hours.  We suggest that you seek legal advice before contemplating significant changes to work structures as these situations can turn into a maze and we would not want any ghosts coming back to haunt you!

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More