Akzo Coatings Plc v Thompson & Ors [1996] UKEAT 1117_94_1402 (14 February 1996)

Akzo Coatings Plc v Thompson & Ors [1996] UKEAT 1117_94_1402 (14 February 1996)

The Industrial Tribunal erred in law by applying the Williams guidelines to the selection process for alternative employment rather than to selection for redundancy. The employer took reasonable steps to find alternative employment, satisfying the requirements of Section 57(3), and the dismissals were fair.

Citation
[1996] UKEAT 1117_94_1402
Parties
Appellants (employees): Mr S Thompson and others; Respondents (employer): Employer (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeals / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision and Review Application
Outcome
Employer's appeal allowed; employees' appeal on review dismissed; findings of fair dismissal substituted for all 8 employees.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Alternative Employment, Remedies, Review of Tribunal Decision
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Alternative Employment Remedies Review of Tribunal Decision

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr S Thompson and others

Appellants (employees)

Employer (unnamed)

Respondents (employer)

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeals / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision and Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal under Section 57(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Tribunal misapplied the Williams guidelines to selection for alternative employment
  3. 3 Whether the review of the remedies decision should have been allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The Industrial Tribunal erred in law by applying the Williams guidelines to the selection process for alternative employment rather than to selection for redundancy. The employer took reasonable steps to find alternative employment, satisfying the requirements of Section 57(3), and the dismissals were fair.

Court Disposition

Employer's appeal allowed; employees' appeal on review dismissed; findings of fair dismissal substituted for all 8 employees.

Orders

  • First appeal (employer) allowed
  • Second appeal (employees) dismissed