In Wrexham Golf Club Co Ltd v Ingham Mr Ingham worked as the sole bar steward at a golf club. He was put at risk of redundancy when the club decided to combine the bar and catering operations. Mr Ingham's role would be performed by other members of the catering staff. Mr Ingham alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed, as the club had not considered the possibility of establishing a selection pool but had decided from the outset that Mr Ingham would be made redundant. He claimed that the club had given no thought to the fact that there was a considerable overlap between the work he did and that of other catering staff.
The original tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair but the EAT overturned this decision as it found that the tribunal had not considered whether the decision to place Mr Ingham in a selection pool of one was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal should have asked itself whether, given the nature of the steward's work, it was reasonable for the club not to consider developing a wider pool of employees. In the EAT's view, there will be cases where it is reasonable to focus on a single employee without establishing a pool or even considering whether one should be established. The EAT remitted the case for a fresh hearing.
Comment: This is a helpful case for employers as it indicates that, in some straightforward redundancy situations, where a decision is made to eliminate a single role, an employer may act reasonably even if it does not apply its mind to the question of establishing a selection pool. However, in most cases it would still be prudent at least to consider whether a selection pool is appropriate by considering whether the employee's duties are broadly interchangeable with other employees' duties.
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.
