Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In a redundancy situation the employer must consult [73] those in the "pool" identified at risk and carry out a fair selection. The consultation must start when the employer decides [ 74 ] or proposes [ 75 ] redundancy - any delay could entitle the employee to compensation for loss of jobseeking time. [ 76 ]
In 2002, the Court of Appeal ruled in a case brought by staff employed at Albion's Farington site in Lancashire, Albion Automotive Ltd w. Walker and others, [1] that a contractual term entitling employees to an enhanced redundancy payment could be implied into the employees' contracts of employment based on the employer's custom and practice.
If it is irrelevant to the employee's right to *90 claim on the ground of unfair dismissal, or to claim a redundancy payment, whether the employee's work has ended owing to the expiry of the fixed term of the contract or owing to the expiry of the term of the notice of dismissal, it seems to me entirely consistent that the "counting" process ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
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 ...
Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington says financial pressure is seeing officers leave Essex Police.
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. Five workers claimed dismissal was unfair.
In the collective agreements between Rolls-Royce and Unite, each year of service gave employees an extra point against selection for redundancy.Rolls-Royce, challenging the collective agreement that it had itself agreed to, asked the court whether this was compatible with the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.