header-logo header-logo

09 September 2011 / John McMullen
Issue: 7480 / Categories: Features , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Free choice?

hires_0_4

John McMullen examines fairness in redundancy selection cases

In unfair dismissal law it is axiomatic in redundancy cases that an employer must develop objective selection criteria and apply them fairly (Williams v Compair Maxam [1982] ICR 156, [1982] IRLR 83). This article examines what controls on managerial prerogative exist in this area.

Primary rule

The primary rule is that the employer must use a method of selection which is fair in general terms and is applied reasonably (Eaton v King and Others [1995] IRLR 75 (EAT); [1996] IRLR 199 (CA)). As the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) stated in Greig v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Son Northern (Ltd) [1979] IRLR 372 “…in considering the reasonableness of a redundancy dismissal, where a selection has to be made between those who are to be retained and those who are to be dismissed, the most important matter upon which the employer has to satisfy the tribunal is that he acted reasonably in respect of the selection of the particular employee. That normally involves

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll