Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court of Appeal denied reinstatement because the employer had shown there were no vacancies and it would be disruptive to ask others to take voluntary redundancy. The Tribunal had failed to give due weight to the employer’s commercial judgment about that practicability, unless the employer was to be disbelieved. Neill LJ said the following.
It therefore refused to offer this option to the employees (on top of what it was doing to relocate staff under mobility clauses and offer voluntary redundancy). The Communication Workers Union claimed that failing to make people aware was a breach of the obligation under TUPER 2006 regulation 13(2)(b) to inform about the legal, economic and ...
A voluntary redundancy programme is not always driven by short term revenue goals. It can also be motivated by the strategic choice to change the age structure within the company. According to research, [ citation needed ] people who accept voluntary redundancy may at times return to the company after changes in the company's prospects ...
Voluntary redundancy is when an employer asks an employee to agree to terminate their contract, in return for a financial incentive. Voluntary redundancy is when an employer asks an employee to ...
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 ...
Lord Denning MR said that the employees were not redundant, because the employer had a legitimate business reason for wishing to vary the contracts, and the employees' non-acceptance effectively amounted to a voluntary resignation. This is a very difficult case. It arises under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. The employers produce little ...
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 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us