Plaintiff was sacked because he couldn’t cope with new practices required by the new owners of a business, including increased paperwork and giving estimates to customers in advance. Plaintiff then employed a new manager.
Defendant argued that he had been made redundant and was therefore entitled to redundancy payment.
Divisional Court rejected this claim, saying that the requirement of greater efficiency did not correspond to any of the circumstances that might indicate redundancy (reduction of work, cessation of business, reduction of a kind of work, etc.).
There was merely a need for a workshop manager with different skills, not a loss of the need for a manager.
There is a difference between requiring a new kind of work (he says that if car manufacturers start using metal instead of wood, then the woodworkers may become redundant) and greater efficiency in the same kind of work.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Labour Law | Economic Restructuring Notes (18 pages) |
Labour Law | Economic Restructuring Redundancy+ Transfers Of Undertakings Notes (42 pages) |
Labour Law | Job Security Notes (15 pages) |