McCrory v Powerscreen International Dist... [2010] NIIT 05102_09IT (21 January 2010)

McCrory v Powerscreen International Dist... [2010] NIIT 05102_09IT (21 January 2010)

The claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy and dismissed following an unfair process. The respondent failed to follow fair and transparent selection procedures, placed the claimant in a pool of one without objective criteria, and selection was influenced by personal animus rather than solely cost. The dismissal was therefore unfair.

Citation
[2010] NIIT 05102_09IT
Parties
Claimant: Declan McCrory; Respondent: Powerscreen International Distribution Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Unfair Dismissal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claimant was unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Fair Selection, Collective Redundancy, Compensation
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Fair Selection Collective Redundancy Compensation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Declan McCrory

Claimant

Powerscreen International Distribution Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Unfair Dismissal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was redundancy the reason for dismissal and was dismissal fair in all circumstances?
  2. 2 Was there a redundancy situation affecting the claimant and was he fairly selected for redundancy following a fair process?
  3. 3 Did statutory dismissal procedures apply and were they followed?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy and dismissed following an unfair process. The respondent failed to follow fair and transparent selection procedures, placed the claimant in a pool of one without objective criteria, and selection was influenced by personal animus rather than solely cost. The dismissal was therefore unfair.

Court Disposition

Claimant was unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant compensation in the sum of £9,222.04