We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
This case involved the Golf Club's appeal to the EAT against
a Tribunal's finding that Mr Ingham's dismissal by reason
of redundancy was unfair, due to a failure by the club to consider
establishing a pool from which redundancies could be made. The club
had identified only Mr Ingham as being at risk of redundancy
because he occupied the unique role of Club Steward which was no
longer required.
Referring to principles from existing case law on whether an
employer has acted fairly in relation to selecting a pool, the EAT
concluded that the range of reasonable responses test applies to
such an analysis. The test applies to the question of whether it
was reasonable for the employer to focus on the persons it
identified as being at risk of redundancy. There will be occasions
when it is reasonable to focus upon a single employee without
considering the development of a pool. The EAT remitted the case to
a fresh Tribunal so that the issue could be considered again with
reference to the proper test. However, it gave a clear indication
in doing so that it expected the Tribunal to find that the club had
acted within the range of reasonable responses.
Implications
This decision confirms that an employer has a significant degree
of latitude when it comes to identifying the appropriate pool for
selection in a redundancy exercise. Where a unique role is
redundant, the employer may forego consideration of a pool
altogether. However, in most cases it will remain wise for an
employer to show that it genuinely put its mind to the issue of who
should be put at risk and that it came to a reasoned conclusion on
the issue.
Originally published 5 Sept 2012
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The High Court and, most recently, Court of Appeal decisions in the "banker bonus" litigation stemming out of the Commerzbank/Dresdner merger in 2008 have received extensive media coverage.
In October 2012, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a Service Provision Change ("SPC") TUPE transfer can only occur where the client who receives the service, before and after the change, remains the same (Hunter v McCarrick [2012] EWCA Civ 1399).
Following much debate, on 24 April 2013 the House of Lords finally gave its approval to employee shareholder status which will now take effect from Autumn 2013.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
