Magee & Ors v TI Solutions Ltd [2006] NIFET 207_03 (30 September 2005)

Magee & Ors v TI Solutions Ltd [2006] NIFET 207_03 (30 September 2005)

The Tribunal found that the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy, the selection process was not influenced by trade union membership or activities, but the method of selection by interview and the consultation process were not sufficiently fair, rendering the dismissals unfair. However, only the first claimant was awarded compensation due to specific circumstances; the others received no compensation.

Citation
[2006] NIFET 207_03
Parties
Claimant: James Magee; Claimant: Irene Andrea Thompson; Claimant: Michael Reed; Claimant: Jim McCoy; Claimant: Alexis Geddis; Respondent: T I Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
30 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims of unlawful discrimination dismissed; claims of unfair dismissal upheld.
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Unfair Dismissal, Trade Union Membership, Selection Criteria, Consultation Process
Employment Law Redundancy Unfair Dismissal Trade Union Membership Selection Criteria Consultation Process

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Magee

Claimant

Irene Andrea Thompson

Claimant

Michael Reed

Claimant

Jim McCoy

Claimant

Alexis Geddis

Claimant

T I Solutions Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants were unfairly dismissed
  2. 2 Whether selection for redundancy was influenced by trade union membership/activities
  3. 3 Whether the method of selection for redundancy was fair

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy, the selection process was not influenced by trade union membership or activities, but the method of selection by interview and the consultation process were not sufficiently fair, rendering the dismissals unfair. However, only the first claimant was awarded compensation due to specific circumstances; the others received no compensation.

Court Disposition

Claims of unlawful discrimination dismissed; claims of unfair dismissal upheld.

Orders

  • No compensation awarded to second, third, fourth, and fifth claimants.
  • Compensation of £1,374.76 awarded to first claimant (James Magee).