In Packman t/a Packman Lucas Associates v Fauchon the EAT confirmed that the statutory test for redundancy under section 139(1)(b)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 – the employer’s requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have ceased or diminished – can be met even where there is no reduction in the number of employees carrying out work of a particular kind. Therefore in this case a reduction in hours needed for a particular job gave rise to a redundancy situation, even though job numbers remained the same.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
