John Guest Engineering v Vaio [2012] EWCA Civ 504
The Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) decision was challenged by the employee, and the Court of Appeal granted permission for a further appeal, emphasising that both the reason for redundancy and its fairness should be jointly considered.
Principles derived:
When determining unfair dismissal claims due to redundancy, both the reason for redundancy and its fairness are crucial elements that should be addressed conjointly.
For a dismissal hearing to be deemed fair, employers must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to address the pertinent issues.
It's not appropriate to artificially separate the reasons for redundancy from its overall fairness.
Facts & Application of Law: The employee faced redundancy and subsequently claimed unfair dismissal. Upon review by the Employment Tribunal (ET), the dismissal was found unfair due to the employer's inability to prove that the redundancy was indeed necessary. The employer, dissatisfied with this outcome, took the matter to the EAT, arguing that the ET's proceedings had procedural unfairness. The EAT sided with the employer, suggesting that the ET hadn’t allowed them a fair chance to present their case. However, when the employee sought permission from the Court of Appeal to contest the EAT's decision, it was granted. The Court of Appeal highlighted that it wasn't appropriate to evaluate redundancy's fairness without considering the underlying reasons for such a decision.
For individuals aiming to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from the Employment Tribunal, this case underscores the importance of ensuring both fairness and the foundation of redundancy decisions are intertwined and comprehensively examined.
