Joseph De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd
[2023] EAT 129
Joseph De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Limited
29 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1291
Court of Appeal
A worker was made redundant. A lower court said the company was fair, but a higher court disagreed, adding a new rule about group discussions. The highest court reversed that, saying the company's actions, when considering everything that happened, were fair even though they didn't follow best practices perfectly.
Key Facts
- •ADP RPO UK Ltd made redundancies due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
- •The Claimant, Joseph De Bank Haycocks, was dismissed for redundancy.
- •The Claimant alleged unfair dismissal due to flawed redundancy consultation and selection processes.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed the claim, finding the redundancy process fair.
- •The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal, finding the consultation process unfair.
- •ADP appealed the EAT's decision to the Court of Appeal.
- •A key issue was whether ADP's scoring of employees for redundancy occurred before the consultation process began.
Legal Principles
Fair consultation is essential in every redundancy process.
De Grasse v Stockwell Tools Ltd [1992] IRLR 269
Fair consultation requires (a) consultation when proposals are at a formative stage; (b) adequate information; (c) adequate time to respond; (d) conscientious consideration of responses.
R v British Coal Corporation ex parte Price [1994] IRLR 72
Redundancy process must be viewed as a whole, and an appeal may correct earlier failings.
Lloyd v Taylor Woodrow Construction [1999] IRLR 782
Departure from good industrial relations practice in redundancy consultation does not automatically render dismissal unfair but requires explanation.
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156
Consultation should occur at a formative stage where employee input can affect the outcome.
Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2022] UKEAT 139
A procedural unfairness in a dismissal decision can be cured by a fair internal appeal.
Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] ICR 1602
Outcomes
Court of Appeal allowed ADP's appeal and restored the ET's decision.
The EAT erred in introducing a new requirement of 'general workforce consultation' and in not properly considering the ET's findings on the consultation process as a whole, including the internal appeal.
Employment Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The ET found the redundancy process fair, considering the consultation process as a whole, including the appeal, despite some procedural irregularities.
Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The EAT found the consultation process unfair due to the absence of consultation at the formative stage, based on a new principle requiring ‘general workforce consultation’.