Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
An Industrial Tribunal (IT, now known as an Employment Tribunal) held that there was a substantial reason justifying dismissal, and by a majority the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld this decision. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that in deciding whether Burns had acted reasonably, the tribunal needed to consider whether an ...
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.
The employer can only rely on the reason in fact for which he dismissed the man, if the facts are sufficiently known or made known to the man. The reason in this case was — on the facts — already known or sufficiently made known to Mr. Abernethy. The wrong label of 'redundancy' does not affect the point.
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
Lord McDonald in the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Tribunal was right. Mr Wood's reasons were that he had committed himself to another job, that he was wary about future layoffs if he stayed with this employer, and that the offer of alternative employment was late in the day. All these, but especially the third reason, were important ...
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 ...
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 .