Redundancy - Unite the Union

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Some years ago, employers had to follow agreed selection procedures or risk claims for automatic unfair dismissal. The law has now been changed however and selection in contravention of an agreed procedure will not now be automatically unfair. It can, however, still be argued that such a dismissal is unfair on general principles. Preferred selection processes are often contained in collective agreements. Historically, the most common method of selection has been (LIFO), where those with the shortest continuous service in the company are dismissed first. As pointed out above, it might be problematic to use this method if it results in more favourable treatment of older employees. In recent years, many employers have moved to different methods of selection using a range of criteria. Employers have claimed that LIFO can mean that the remaining workforce does not have the skills, experience and versatility necessary for future success. Employers now departing from LIFO must ensure that the criteria used are those which a ‘reasonable’ employer would have used. If no reasonable employer would have selected for redundancy on the grounds in question, then the dismissals are likely to be unfair. The dismissal of an employee selected for redundancy will be unfair if it is discriminatory on the grounds of race, age, sex or disability or on the grounds of a person’s trade union activity. Discriminatory criteria may arise where there appears to be no obvious intention to discriminate. One such case is where parttime workers are dismissed for redundancy in advance of full-time workers. The application of such criteria could be unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex because a considerably smaller proportion of women than men can work full-time because of child care responsibilities. Another example is where sickness absence is used as one of the selection criteria without taking account of the fact that a disabled employee might have a higher level of sick leave. Unfair dismissal is discussed in more detail later in this guide. 14
n NOTICE In addition to their duty to consult, employers must give every redundant employee notice of dismissal. This notice should be stipulated in the employment contract, but must be at least a week for those with more than a month, but less than two years’ service. For those with more than two years, it is a week for every year of service up to a maximum of 12 weeks. This statutory entitlement is in Section 86 of the ERA. An employer may require the employee to work all or part of their notice, or may not want them to attend work at all. An employee not required to work their notice, must be paid money in lieu of notice for the whole or the balance of their unworked notice period. Even if an employer has announced redundancies and given an indication as to which people are likely to be on the list of dismissals, it is important that these employees do not panic and leave their jobs too early, despite the temptation to seek and accept other work as soon as possible. Employees leaving before the start of the notice period will lose their right to a redundancy payment. Case Study 4 Rolls Royce, Bristol A total of £38,000 compensation was secured for Unite member, Andy Robertson after the union’s solicitors proved that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy on the grounds of his union activities. • Andy had worked as a fitter at Rolls Royce, Bristol for eight years. With the announcement of large scale redundancies in 1993, his union workload increased and towards the end of the year he was informed he had been selected for redundancy. • The company operated a selection procedure which involved gradings for categories such as attendance and service where Andy scored well and for subjective criteria such as flexibility and adaptability where he scored poorly. When challenged over his low grades the company said the reason for the scoring was that he ‘never took his trade union hat off’. The tribunal ruled unanimously that Rolls Royce was guilty of discrimination on the grounds of trade union activities and said the company should only have assessed his work as a fitter. 15
Page 1 and 2: Redundancy
Page 3 and 4: UNdERSTaNdiNg REdUNdaNCy n INTRODUC
Page 5 and 6: a ‘suitable’ job at another loc
Page 7 and 8: n CONSULTATION Tribunals expect emp
Page 9 and 10: of avoiding the dismissals, reducin
Page 11 and 12: Case Study 3 CJR Fryson & Sons Unit
Page 13: n SELECTION FOR REDUNDANCY The crit
Page 17 and 18: n REdUNdaNCy pay • Pre-conditions
Page 19 and 20: Examples of redundancy payment calc
Page 21 and 22: • Redundancy pay and pensions Emp
Page 23 and 24: n aLTERNaTivE EmpLOymENT Employers
Page 25 and 26: The tribunal must take account of a
Page 27 and 28: • Assertion of a statutory right
Page 29 and 30: solutions and, if necessary, find a
Page 31 and 32: n USEFUL CONTaCTS REGIONAL OFFICES

Redundancy - Unite the Union

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?