R Thomas v Brandpath UK LTD
[2024] EAT 150
M Birkett v Integral UK Ltd
18 June 2024
[2024] EAT 107
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker was made redundant. A judge said the company didn't show enough evidence they tried hard enough to find him another job within the company before letting him go. So, the case will go back to the same judge to look at that part again.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Birkett was dismissed from Integral UK Ltd due to redundancy.
- •Mr. Birkett appealed the Employment Tribunal's (ET) dismissal of his unfair dismissal claim.
- •The appeal focused on the adequacy of the ET's findings regarding the employer's efforts to find alternative employment for Mr. Birkett.
- •The ET's findings were deemed insufficient concerning the employer's job search process and the assessment of a specific job interview Mr. Birkett attended.
- •The claimant identified at least two further roles which he says he would have been more than qualified to do and would have considered in preference to redundancy.
Legal Principles
An employer must take reasonable steps to find suitable alternative employment for an employee facing redundancy.
Williams v Compair Maxam [1982] ICR 156 (para 162F)
The fairness of an employer's actions in a redundancy situation is assessed under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98(4)
The ET's assessment must fall within the 'band of reasonable responses'.
Gwynedd Council v Barratt [2021] IRLR 1028, para. 43
Tribunal decisions must be Meek compliant; providing sufficient reasons for decisions.
Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250
An ET can draw adverse inferences from the absence of evidence.
Implicit in the judgment
Outcomes
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal in part.
The EAT found the ET's findings regarding the employer's job search process and the specific job interview were insufficient to determine the fairness of the dismissal under section 98(4) ERA.
The case was remitted to the same Employment Tribunal.
The EAT considered the limited value of the claim and the lack of challenge to the ET's professionalism, making remittal to the same tribunal appropriate.