DAVID ROYDEN - EMPLOYMENT SOLICITOR
UK EMPLOYMENT LAW

David Royden is a Partner with Laytons Solicitors and Head of Employment Law, Manchester, UK

Laytons Solicitors is a national law practice specialising in all aspects of Company and Commercial Law

Laytons Solicitors, 22 St John Street, Manchester M3 4EB.
Tel: +44 (0) 161 834 2100
Fax: +44 (0) 161 834 6862

Offices at London, Manchester and Guildford, UK

 

back to home page

Dismissal on grounds of Redundancy

Redundancy in itself is a valid reason for dismissal. But an employee dismissed for this reason may nevertheless be found to have been unfairly dismissed. This will arise where the employee was unfairly selected for redundancy:

  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy by reason of his or her trade union membership or activities, or non-membership of a union; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for taking action on health and safety grounds or for asserting a statutory employment right; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy on maternity-related grounds; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for taking or seeking to take paternity leave;
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for taking or seeking to take adoption leave;
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for requesting flexible working arrangements;
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy by reason of his or her refusal or proposal to refuse to do shop work or betting shop work on Sundays; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for performing, or proposing to perform, any duties relevant to his or her role as an employee occupational pension scheme trustee; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for performing, or proposing to perform, any duties relevant to his or her role as an employee representative or as a candidate to be a representative of this kind; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to the national minimum wage; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to the Working Time Regulations 1998; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for making a protected disclosure
    within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy because he or she took or sought to take parental leave, time off for dependants, ordinary maternity leave or additional maternity leave; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for taking lawfully organised official industrial action lasting eight weeks or less (or more than eight weeks, in certain circumstances);or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for exercising or seeking to exercise rights relating to trade union recognition procedures; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for performing or proposing to perform any duties relating to an employee's role as a workforce representative or as a candidate to be such a representative for the purposes of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999, or for taking certain actions in connection with these regulations, or for proposing to take or failing to take such actions; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to the Tax Credits Act 2002 (see Dismissal relating to the Tax Credits Act 2002); or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to the European Public Limited-Liability Company Regulations 2004; or
  • because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 for undertakings with 150 employees (from 6 April 2007 for undertakings with 100 employees and from 6 April 2008 for undertakings with 50 employees);
  • From 6 April 2005, because the employee was chosen for redundancy for reasons relating to jury service.

In addition, as in respect of any other reason for dismissal, the tribunal needs to be satisfied that the employer acted reasonably in treating the redundancy as a sufficient reason for the dismissal. Accordingly, here also, the tribunal will look to see that the dismissal of that particular employee or the manner of the dismissal was fair; examples of unfair redundancy dismissals could occur where the employer failed to give adequate warning of redundancy or failed to consider alternative employment for the employee.

back to home page

 

Employmet Law Procedures - view section

Employment Law Issues - view section

Sample Documents - view section