Plaintiff worked at Defendant’s Liverpool branch. There was a shortage of work there and Plaintiff refused Defendant’s request to move to another branch.
He was sacked, and Plaintiff claimed this was redundancy (which Defendant contested so as to avoid paying redundancy pay).
CA held that, since there was no ‘mobility’ clause in Plaintiff’s contract, whether express or implied, he could not have been sacked for breaching his contract. Rather, the dismissal must have been on grounds of redundancy.
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 Redundancy+ Transfers Of Undertakings Notes (42 pages) |
Labour Law | Job Security Notes (15 pages) |