MISCELLANEOUS CASES
Written notice
Haywood v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] UKSC 22, Supreme Court
The Trust identified H’s post as redundant. If her employment terminated by reason of redundancy on or after her 50th birthday on July 20, 2011, she could claim a non-actuarially reduced pension. H told the employer that she was taking two weeks annual leave from April 18. The Trust issued 12 weeks written notice of redundancy on April 20. It was delivered to her home on April 21 by recorded delivery. A relative collected the letter from the sorting office on April 26. On April 27 H read the letter. She claimed that the notice period ran from April 27 and expired on July 20. The Trust argued that there was a common law rule that notice was given when the letter was delivered to an address.
The Supreme Court found that when an employee was dismissed on written notice posted to her home address, and there was no express provision in the contract of employment as to when the notice period would run, the court would imply a term that written notice only took effect when it came to the employee’s attention and she had either read the notice or had a reasonable opportunity of so doing. The presumption of receipt at the address was rebuttable.
Causation
Sanders v Ernest Neale [1974] IRLR 236, NIRC: There is no redundancy where an employee is dismissed for taking part in industrial action, even where circumstances suggest redundancy.
Change in terms of employment
Johnson v Nottinghamshire Combined Police Authority [1974] 1 WLR 358, CA:there is no redundancy where there is a proposed change in hours of work but no change to the nature of work or total number of hours.
Curling v Securicor Ltd [1992] IRLR 549, EAT: employers must make their position clear where they intend to rely on the contractual mobility clause in cases of potential redundancy.
Stevenson v Teesside Bridge and Engineering [1971] 1 All ER 296, DC: an employee may be refused redundancy payment where he declines an offer to work away from home (steel erector).
Chapman v Goonvean and Rostowrack China Co [1973] 1 WLR 678, CA: an employer who had for many years provided free transport to work withdrew the service on economic grounds. The employer offered to continue to employ workers affected on the basis that they would make own arrangements for transport. Workers refused and left employment. Held, as was not dismissal by reason of redundancy.
Diminished need
Lesney Products & Co Ltd v Nolan [1977] IRLR 77, CA: no redundancy where hours of work of employees reduced by a cut in overtime, where work requirement was unchanged and the need for employees remains constant.
Cowen v Haden Carrier Ltd [1983] ICR 1, CA: the meaning of redundancy. Whether contractual duties are diminished. All terms of employment must be considered in order to discover whether an employee has been made redundant.
Hindle v Percival Boats [1969] 1 WLR 174, CA: the tribunal has a duty to look at facts objectively to discover true causes of dismissal, in order to discover whether there was redundancy.
Dismissal
Carry All Motors v Pennington [1980] IRLR 455, EAT: where the work of two employees is merged to create one new job to be done by one of them, then the other dismissed employee is made redundant. Although workload has remained constant, the number of employees required has diminished.
Pillinger v Manchester Area Health Authority [1979] IRLR 430, EAT: an employer cannot automatically dismiss employees where funds run out or are withdrawn. Employers should look for other funds or ask employees to accept lower-paid work. Failure to do so can make dismissal unfair.
North East Coast Ship Repairers Ltd v Secretary of State for Employment [1978] IRLR 149, EAT: an employer’s inability to employ an apprentice after the end of fixed-term apprenticeship contract is not in itself a dismissal for redundancy.
Offer of alternative employment
Cambridge and District Co-operative Society Ltd v Ruse [1993] IRLR 156, EAT: an employee’s personal perception of alternative employment offered may amount to reasonableness.
Presumption of redundancy
Willcox and another v Hastings [1987] IRLR 298, CA: Where two employees dismissed at same time, one because of diminution in requirements for employees and one not, and tribunal cannot decide which is which, then the dismissal will be presumed to be because of redundancy unless the contrary is proved.
Rationalisation
Banerjee v City and East London Area Health Authority [1979] IRLR 147, EAT:employer must bring evidence of significance of rationalisation, reasons for rationalisation and reasons for which dismissal was necessary.
Strikes
Simmons v Hoover Ltd [1976] IRLR 266, EAT: an employee serving out notice of redundancy was dismissed for taking part in strike. Held, accrued right to redundancy payment survives second dismissal.
Transfer of undertaking
Crompton v Truly Fair (International) Ltd [1975] IRLR 250, High Court: company sold one factory. The new owner retained all staff but manufactured a different product. Held, as no “transfer”. Employees could claim redundancy payments from old employer.
Pickwell v Lincolnshire County Council [1993] ICR 87, EAT: employee worked at a school which had been funded by local authority but which became grant-maintained. Held, continuous employment for purpose of redundancy pay.
Warnings
Gray v Shetland Norse Preserving Co Ltd [1985] IRLR 53, EAT: it is the duty of an employer to give as much notice as possible of impending redundancies. This does not extend to warning an employee that poor attendance record may lead to selection for redundancy.
Komentar