Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Compair Maxam Ltd was losing business. Departmental managers picked teams of core staff who could be retained to keep the business viable. They chose on personal preference for what they thought would be good for the company, but the union was not consulted. Other employees were dismissed for redundancy and given money beyond statutory minima.
Mrs Christine Horst and two other employees claimed unfair dismissal after being told they were redundant, and failing applications for other positions with High Table Ltd. High Table Ltd. argued they were redundant because their workplace, which was factually always from 10am to 4pm at City firm Hill Samuel, no longer needed their ‘silver service’ waitressing after the supply contract was ...
The Court of Appeal applied a "contract test" to the question of redundancy: whether an employee was redundant was to be determined by reference to the terms (explicit or implied) in their employment contract. This, along with the "function test" was subsequently rejected by the House of Lords in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd. [3
A less severe form of involuntary termination is often referred to as a layoff (also redundancy or being made redundant in British English). A layoff is usually not strictly related to personal performance but instead due to economic cycles or the company's need to restructure itself, the firm itself going out of business, or a change in the function of the employer (for example, a certain ...
The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an ...
The reasons laid out that an employer can dismiss are in s.98(2). Fair reasons to dismiss an employee are if it, (a) relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he or she was employed by the employer to do, (b) relates to the conduct of the employee, (c) is that the employee was redundant, or
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.. The phrase 'Polkey deduction' has become a standard concept in UK Employment Tribunals, as a result of this case and later ones, meaning that even if a Tribunal decides a dismissal was unfair, it must separately decide whether the compensatory ...
This gives employees increased certainty. A side-effect of the new regulations could prove unfortunate for some employers. This has been particularly highlighted in connection with law firms. According to the Law Society's magazine, The Law Society Gazette, law firms might be forced to employ teams of lawyers when taking over contracts. [9]