Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In a redundancy situation the employer must consult [73] those in the "pool" identified at risk and carry out a fair selection. The consultation must start when the employer decides [74] or proposes [75] redundancy - any delay could entitle the employee to compensation for loss of jobseeking time. [76]
Protection from unfair dismissal at the Commonwealth level was enhanced in 1984 by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with its ruling in the Termination, Change and Redundancy Case, [2] [13] that awards should contain a provision that dismissal "shall not be harsh, unjust or unreasonable" and subsequent awards following it ...
Overtime might be reduced, for instance, by taking on more men: but that would not give the existing staff a right to redundancy payments. Also when overtime is reduced by a reorganisation of working hours, that does not give rise to a right to redundancy payment, so long as the work to be done is the same.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In 2002, the Court of Appeal ruled in a case brought by staff employed at Albion's Farington site in Lancashire, Albion Automotive Ltd w. Walker and others, [1] that a contractual term entitling employees to an enhanced redundancy payment could be implied into the employees' contracts of employment based on the employer's custom and practice.
While a finding that a dismissal was unfair may result in reinstatement, [19] compensation is limited to 6 months pay, [20] and employees are excluded from claiming in some circumstances, such as where the dismissal was a genuine redundancy or the former employee was not covered by an award and exceeded the high income threshold. [21] [22]
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.. The phrase 'Polkey deduction' has become a standard concept in UK Employment Tribunals, as a result of this case and later ones, meaning that even if a Tribunal decides a dismissal was unfair, it must separately decide whether the compensatory ...
Redundancy" is an economic dismissal "not related to the individual concerned" (e.g. for poor work or misconduct). [358] In University of Stirling v UCU the Supreme Court held that expiry of fixed term contracts, for 140 University teaching staff, did not count as a reason "related to the individual", and so staff should have been consulted. [359]