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 ]
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
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 ...
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.
The qualifying period for redundancy is having worked for two years with the same employer (s.155). You are not entitled to redundancy if you have simply reached retiring age (s.156). And nothing prevents the employer from making a dismissal for misconduct or capability, as outlined under the fairness provisions for dismissal (s.98).
Roksolana Mokhnenko fled Kyiv with her brother, mother, husband and their cat.
Section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 defines the two situations in which a redundancy may occur: (a) the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease— (i) to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or (ii) to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or
Pay was lower, hours were more, holidays were reduced and the occupational pension and fringe benefits were gone. He rejected the offer and claimed unfair dismissal. The Tribunal upheld Mr Pearce's unfair dismissal claim, and Richmond Precision Engineering appealed.