Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/18

Click to flip

18 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Taylor v Kent County Council
Head teacher, the school was closed & the head teacher was offered work as a supply teacher, but they said that he could keep his head teachers salary… Financial terms = Same & arguably the council were paying him way above what they would normally pay… head teacher refused…. The status not the same & it meant that if he did this for a certain period of time it may make it difficult for him to get other headships because of the loss of experience and being acquainted with a supply teacher – Court upheld and said that pay alone is not the decisive factor & you have to take into account all circumstances & contextual circumstances & come to a conclusion whether the particular offer comes to a reasonable alternative employment and this was seen as not.
Commission for Health Care Audit v Ward
Woman was told she was going to be made redundant. They put her on "gardening leave" to try and find her new employment - she was still on their payroll. This lasted several months and then they said she found a new job... but she rejected this job because:
1) lower status
2) relationships between her & those working there had broken down
3) too much time had elapsed
The court upheld that she should get her redundancy pay

→ Employer = lesson – they may get claims against them if they handle redundancies in a really poor manner, employers have to be careful to get it right or they may find themselves having to pay redundancy payments as well as other compensation for breaching other employment provisions….
Optical Express Limited v Williams
Trial Period - williams was transferred & she didn't hand in notice that she wasn't satisfied in time so she wasn't entitled to redundancy pay
Williams v Compare Maxam Ltd
The employer should try & take into account the interests of their employees
The correct procedure the courts should take should include:
-Warning
-Consultation
-The option for employees and the opportunity for them to object to the redundancy
-Alternative Employment
Hardy v Tourism South East
You must give proper time to consult within collective redundancies. You must consult EARLY - not when you have already made plans
GMB and AEEU v Campbell UK
This is a situation where the employer decided who he was going to make redundant & then consulted with the representative of the trade union.. This was held to be too late.. the employer should have spoken to the union how about how to minimise redundancies or how to choose people to make redundant at the initial stages.
Vaux and Associated Brewers v Ward
Older bar maid was dismissed. They brought in young women, she tried to claim redundancy..
It wasn't a redundancy situation because the work was still there.. it was an unfair dismissal or an age discrimination case but because at this time (1969) it wasn't illegal to do these things she couldn't claim for anything!
1. UK Energy v Claydon
Cessation of a business.
But this case says that employers should always try & move the person elsewhere as a "reasonable alternative"
1. BBC v Nelson
Fired because the employer closed in the Caribbean and they wanted to move him to america. There was no mobility clause in his contract so they said it was redundancy.. (because it is cheaper to do redundancy than unfair dismissal) but he claimed unfair dismissal & won his case.
3. High Table v Horst
Cessation of work in a particular location
Waitresses had only worked in one place, the place closed & the employer said they should move to another location.
They said no it was redundancy & the court upheld it.
3. O'Brian v Associated Fire Alarms
Cessation of work in a particular location
an employer wanted to move him from Liverpool to Barrow-on Furness and the employee said no this was too far, the employer fired him for misconduct – the court held that no this was actually a redundancy situation – the employer had no right to move the guy because he had no mobility clause (shows that the courts will look at the actual factors & circumstances)
2. Murphy v Epsom College
Cessation or diminishing of work
a plumbers work was overtaken by a heating technition
2. Northriding Garage v Butterwick
Cessation or diminishing of work
A manager was told that his work would now include selling cars as well as administration and managing.. he left and tried to claim redundancy.. but no.. its constructive dismissal if anything!
Haden Ltd v Cowan
The Contract Test
The Function Test
Safeway Stores v Burrell
the contract & function test are too damn complicated. Better to ask 3 simple questions.

1) Were they dismissed?
2) Had the work they were doing ceased or diminished?
3) Was the main reason they were dismissed because of this?
Home Office v Evans
Wasn't made redundant when they evoked their mobility clause
Paine and Moore v Grundy
You must be really careful when using the Points System that you don't make somebody redundant because they have been ill lots because of a disability.. can land you in disability discrimination, which is NOT good
Duffy v Yeomans
An employee was not consulted regarding his redundancy but the court said it was fair because the company had nowhere else for him & no reasonable alternative.. therefore there was no point in consulting him....