A table setting out the automatically unfair reasons for selection for redundancy.
Georgina Kyriacou and David Malamentenios are partners and Sandra Martins, Colin Makin and Krishna Santra are associates at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
In Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust  IRLR 491 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employer was justified in issuing a redundancy dismissal notice to an employee prior to formal consultation so as to avoid his remaining in its employment until his 50th birthday.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the tribunal was correct to find that the respondent did not have an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) defence in respect of the two claimants, who were dismissed as a result of harmonisation following a post-TUPE transfer redundancy process.
A model redundancy selection matrix to assess employees' value to the organisation when considering making redundancies from a pool of employees.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers redundancy selection criteria.
In University of Stirling v University and College Union  IRLR 266 EAT, the EAT held that dismissals because of the expiry of fixed-term contracts were for a reason related to the employees concerned. Accordingly, they were not redundancy dismissals within the meaning of s.195 of TULR(C)A, and did not trigger the statutory duty on the employer to consult in respect of collective redundancies.
The latest XpertHR research shows that employers experienced a median voluntary resignation rate of 7.9% in 2011 and a median total staff turnover rate of 13.2%, but there are the usual variations in labour turnover patterns according to industry and occupation.
In Meter U Ltd v Ackroyd and others; Meter U Ltd v Hardy and others  IRLR 367 EAT, the EAT held that the dismissal of staff who refused to become franchisees following a transfer was capable of being for an ETO reason. Genuine franchisees were not employees, so the requirement for "changes in the workforce" was met provided that the new arrangement was not a sham.
In Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard EAT/0445/11, the EAT held that the employer's failure to include in a redundancy selection pool employees doing similar work to the dismissed employee rendered her dismissal for redundancy unfair.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy.