Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawRedundancy

Case round-up – Redundancy and protective awards

by Personnel Today 21 Jan 2008
by Personnel Today 21 Jan 2008

Ralph Martindale & Co Limited v Harris

Facts Due to a significant decline in orders, Ralph Martindale (RM) was required to reorganise the company and remove a layer of management.

Harris, group development executive, and Ensor, managing director of RM England, were informed that their roles were at risk. Both applied for the new alternative role of director and general manager. The vacancy was advertised and a third internal candidate applied.

The role was awarded to Ensor on the basis that he had a “less insular management style”. Harris claimed his redundancy was unfair as the selection process for the alternative role was not objective.

Decision The tribunal upheld Harris’ complaint. Although there is no requirement to consult with employees on the criteria for the alternative role, the selection process should be reasonable. The decision to appoint Ensor was based on an entirely subjective view, and there was no job description for the new role.

The tribunal also held that the role should not have been opened to other applicants prior to RM establishing that the redundant applicants were not suitable. RM’s procedure was not “current industrial relations practice”.

The EAT agreed with the tribunal and held that entirely subjective criteria are not appropriate when selecting for alternative employment. It confirmed that the tribunal was entitled to form its own view of the overall fairness. The tribunal is the “industrial jury” and is entitled to make up its own mind about what constitutes “good industrial practice” based on its own experience.

Implications This case highlights the importance of ensuring that the selection process for alternative roles in a redundancy is not an afterthought.

Shortcuts should not be taken as these may result in the redundancy being held to be unfair. Employers must offer alternative opportunities for redundant employees prior to opening up these roles to wider applicants.

Selection criteria should be as objective as possible and applied in a fair manner. To establish relevant criteria for alternative roles, it is recommended that employers draft a job description.

Evans & Or v Permacell Finesse Limited

Facts Permacell Finesse (PF) announced around 77 potential redundancies. As a result, PF was obliged to collectively consult for a minimum of 30 days. The company made no provision for the election of employee representatives and was therefore unable to consult with them. Several employees brought claims for a protective award for PF’s failure to collectively consult.

Decision The EAT uplifted the protective award made by the tribunal from 30 to 90 days. The EAT reiterated previous decisions stating that the protected award is punitive, rather than compensatory, in nature. The starting point for the calculation is 90 days, even if the minimum consultation period is 30 days. The award should be 90 days unless there are existing mitigating or other circumstances which would make it fair to consider a reduction.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Implications This case is a reminder to employers of the potentially substantial protective awards that can be incurred as a result of failing to collectively consult, even where the obligation to consult is for a minimum of 30 days. Affected employees can be awarded up to 90 days’ pay, which is not subject to any statutory cap.

Kat Fairbairn, associate, Addleshaw Goddard

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Police pay rises should be linked to performance, according to new report
next post
Financial watchdog trains staff to field MPs’ questions

You may also like

Company director wins £15k after being told to...

4 Jul 2025

Microsoft to cut 9,000 jobs globally as role...

3 Jul 2025

How can HR prepare for changes to the...

3 Jul 2025

Top 10 HR questions June 2025: Redundancy consultation

2 Jul 2025

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

2 Jul 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

Bioethanol plant closure could lead to 4,000 job...

26 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Graduate jobs this summer ‘will be toughest since...

25 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+