Employment lawyer and XpertHR contributing author Laurie Anstis takes employers through the basics of a fair redundancy procedure.
In Wrexham Golf Club Co Ltd v Ingham EAT/0190/12, the EAT held that, where one particular post is to disappear, there will be cases where it is so obvious that the occupant of the post will be the only person at risk of redundancy that it will not be outside the range of reasonable responses for the employer to focus consultation on that person without considering a wider pool.
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.
Practical guidance on deciding which employees to include in a redundancy pool as part of a redundancy selection process, including when to consider "bumping".
In Lomond Motors Ltd v Clark EATS/0019/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had erred in finding a dismissal unfair on the grounds that the redundancy selection pool had been incorrectly drawn. The tribunal had substituted its own view for that of a reasonable employer. The tribunal had further erred in its assessment of compensation.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer's choice of who to include in a redundancy selection pool was within the range of reasonable responses because it was based on genuine, sound business reasons. Employers should be afforded a good deal of flexibility in the determination of the pool of selection for redundancy.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to redundancy pools.