Some employers involved in redundancy programmes are placing those made redundant on a list of people who would be offered an opportunity to return if business picks up as they have the experience, knowledge and skills required. But does failing to place an employee on such a list make the redundancy unreasonable? No, said the EAT in Aramark (UK) Limited v Fernandes. The employer maintained a list of people they could turn to if they had a labour shortage including about 120 people with a variety of skill sets, which they used regularly, and those on it had reasonable prospects of obtaining work. The EAT ruled that an ET had erred in deciding that a failure to place an employee whose post had become redundant on that list of workers whose services could be called upon if required, meant the employer had acted unreasonably given all the circumstances of the case within the meaning of S.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Since placing the employee on the list would only provide a prospect of work and it would not avoid redundancy, the failure was not within the scope of S.98(4) – placing F on the list was not a way of finding him another job within the business as an alternative to redundancy.
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.