REDUNDANCY - 21.10.2020

Redundancy dismissal was not unfair

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that an employer’s failure to place a redundant employee on its list of bank workers didn’t make his dismissal unfair. Why?

A fair dismissal?

For a redundancy dismissal to be fair, an employer must first have taken steps to search for alternative employment for the employee. In Aramark (UK) Ltd v Fernandes 2020 (see Follow up ), Fernandes (F) was made redundant. Aramark (A) had no alternative employment to offer, but it did maintain a list of bank workers that it called upon when it required additional manpower. Those casual workers weren’t employees and nor were they guaranteed work. F argued that A’s failure to place him on that list rendered his dismissal unfair contrary to s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 . F’s claim was successful before an employment tribunal, so A appealed.

EAT decision

The EAT upheld A’s appeal, noting that s.98(4) requires a tribunal to be satisfied that an employer acted reasonably in dismissing. The EAT said that the list didn’t provide alternative employment and placing F on it wouldn’t have avoided his redundancy, so A’s decision wasn’t unreasonable.

Pro advice.S.98(4) relates to determining the fairness of a dismissal - the EAT said that it doesn’t provide a right to an alternative that might simply have the potential to mitigate the adverse effects of dismissal.

Aramark (UK) Ltd v Fernandes

The list of bank workers wasn’t alternative employment, and the employee would still have been made redundant even if he had been placed on the list.

© Indicator - FL Memo Ltd

Tel.: (01233) 653500 • Fax: (01233) 647100

subscriptions@indicator-flm.co.uk • www.indicator-flm.co.uk

Calgarth House, 39-41 Bank Street, Ashford, Kent TN23 1DQ

VAT GB 726 598 394 • Registered in England • Company Registration No. 3599719