Ps were employed as clerks and D wanted to shift their hours from 9.30am-5.30pm (i.e. 8 hours a day) to shifts varying every other week that would amount to 7 hours a day work. Ps refused to change their hours and were dismissed, D employing replacements who would work those shifts. Ps claimed entitlement to redundancy payments but the CA held that the change to alternating bi-weekly shifts was really about promoting efficiency (as it would enable policeman to spend more time policing and less time answering phones). There was no reduction in the particular kind of work undertaken by Ps (NB court took no account of the reduction of work by two hours per week, though this is so small as to be barely relevant).
Cairns LJ: ‘kind’ or work does not refer to the number of hours. (Makes sense since there is separate reference in the legislation to reduction in output. Also, as Cairns LJ points out, there is special reference to place of work but NOT to working hours patterns).