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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll