Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
A fair redundancy dismissal normally requires warning and consultation, objective selection criteria fairly applied, and consideration of alternative employment.
Facts
Compair Maxam had to make a number of employees redundant. The managers selected those to be dismissed by choosing the employees they wished to keep, on the basis of their personal opinions, without consulting the trade union, applying objective criteria, or warning the employees. Several of those dismissed claimed unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that the dismissals were fair.
Legal principle
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the dismissals were unfair. Browne-Wilkinson J said that, in cases where employees are represented by an independent trade union, reasonable employers will seek to act in accordance with certain principles: giving as much warning as possible of impending redundancies, consulting the union about the best means of achieving the desired management result fairly and with as little hardship as possible, establishing criteria for selection which do not depend solely on the opinion of the person making the selection but can be objectively checked, ensuring that the selection is made fairly in accordance with those criteria, and seeing whether alternative employment could be offered. The employer had not followed these principles.
Related cases on unfair dismissal
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380, [2008] ICR 799
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] AC 344
- Post Office v Foley; HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] ICR 1283
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55, [2020] ICR 731
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588, [2003] ICR 111
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.
