Dismissal redundancy

Industrial Tribunals were set up in 1964 to deal with matters arising under the Industrial Training Act of that year. Now they have statutory jurisdiction in a range of employment matters, such as unfair dismissal, redundancy payments, equal pay, and sex and race discrimination. In the context of HSW they hear appeals against prohibition and improvement notices, and applications by statutory safety representatives about payment for time off for training. 

The most frequent objective reason for a routine dismissal in practice is lack of work (arbetsbrist). The decision on who is to be dismissed in the event of operational redundancies must be based on the so-called order of succession (turordning), which refers to the legally regulated order of employment contracts that is to be observed upon dismissal. The rule is last hired - first fired (i.e. last in - first out, LIFO). 

Employees who have been dismissed for operational redundancy enjoy a preferential right to re-employment if the enterprise in which they worked restores jobs. The precondition is an employment period of more than 12 months within the past 3 years or, in the case of seasonal workers, 6 months employment within the past 2 years. If several employees have a right to re-employment, the order of succession will then again determine who is actually re-employed. 

Awaiting for redundant tram dismissing after elapsed time redundancy... 

The sub-tree with event 3 as a root (see Fig. 10) concerns situation when tram fails in the system and there are available spare ones in the depot. The sub-tree with event 4 and 5, respectively, describes the situations, when the tram fails while redundant trams are dismissed and redundant tram has return to depot. 

Where an employee alleges unfair dismissal. Part V of the 1978 Act (as amended) sets out to define the scope of unfair dismissal and the remedies that are available together with the methods of calculating compensation. Part VI deals with redundancy payments. 

When the trading position of a company is depressed to the extent that they can no longer afford to continue employing all their existing employees, those who are dismissed on the grounds of lack of work become redundant. This is defined in s. 81(2) of the 1978 Act. The selection of which employees are to be declared redundant must be equitable taking into account all the circumstances, otherwise the redundancy can be regarded as unfair dismissal. 

Tribunals sit locally and consist of a legally qualified chairman plus a representative from each side of industry. Proceedings begin with an originating notice of application in which the applicant sets out the name and address of both parties and the facts of the claim. The application must be made within the prescribed time limit. This varies. It is 21 days with enforcement notice three months for unfair dismissal and paid time off for union duties six months for redundancy applications. 

Over the years, the courts have varied in the importance they put upon consultation between the employer and the employee where redundancy is concerned. However, the present position is that consultation is of considerable importance and in Polkey Lord Bridge said. in the case of redundancy, Ihe employer will normally not act reasonably unless he warns and consults any employee affected or their representative. This does not mean that where no consultation takes place with the employee the redundancy is inevitably unfair but it certainly makes the employer s position more difficult to sustain. In some cases there is a statutory obligation to consult recognised trade unions over redundancies. A redundancy can also be rendered unfair by the failure of the employer to find alternative employment for the employee. In any event, under DDF the employer is required to follow particular procedures where they are contemplating dismissal. 

---