Safeway Stores plc v Burrell
The statutory definition of redundancy turns on whether the employer's requirement for employees to do work of a particular kind has diminished, not on whether the work itself has diminished.
Facts
Mr Burrell was a petrol station manager for Safeway. The company reorganised its management structure, abolishing his post and replacing it with a new post of petrol filling station controller, at a lower salary. Mr Burrell did not apply for the new post, and was dismissed. He claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that he was not redundant, because the work he did was still needed.
Legal principle
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had applied the wrong test. Judge Peter Clark said that the tribunal should ask three questions: was the employee dismissed, if so, had the requirements of the employer's business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind ceased or diminished, or were they expected to do so, and, if so, was the dismissal caused wholly or mainly by that state of affairs. The question is whether the employer's requirement for employees has diminished, not whether the amount of work has diminished. The case was sent back for rehearing. The approach was approved by the House of Lords in Murray v Foyle Meats.
Related cases on redundancy and transfer of undertakings
- Botzen v Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij BV Case 186/83, [1985] ECR 519
- Celtec Ltd v Astley [2006] UKHL 29
- Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd [2001] IRLR 144
- High Table Ltd v Horst [1998] ICR 409
- ISS Facility Services NV v Govaerts Case C-344/18, EU:C:2020:239
- Litster v Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546
- Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd [2009] ICR 1380
- Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [1999] UKHL 30, [2000] 1 AC 51
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
