Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: March 1, 2011
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 13 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
A recent case Fulcrum Pharma (Europe) Ltd v Bonassera and another 2010) emphasises the need for giving an employee facing redundancy a full consultation to consider all eventualities.
In the particular case a manager’s post was chosen for redundancy. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decided that the employees were wrong in concluding that the pool of people who could potentially be made redundant was just the one post. There was a junior post which potentially both people would be qualified for. It is not the function of the person but the kind of work that needed to be considered as necessary for reduction. Effectively the EAT decided that the consultation process should be open to more of the potential for ‘bumping’ ie the more senior person taking over the role of the junior.
So faced with such a situation the employer must have meaningful consultation and it is incorrect to decide that a particular post should go without discussing alternatives with the individual affected. A situation of bumping must be discussed with the employee during consultations even where that bumping would lead to lower status/salary.
