LAW Head of Litigation, Richard Woods, has been published! Followers of employment law will no doubt be aware of the highly regarded IDS Handbooks which give detailed guidance on employment law issues.
A case in which Richard appeared for the employer, Lomond Motors Ltd, has made it into the most recent edition of the IDS Redundancy Handbook. The case centred around the issue of whether a redundancy pool should include only employees doing the same, or similar, work. The Employment Tribunal held that the pool in this case should have included an employee who was doing the same job as the other two people in the pool, notwithstanding the fact that she did not have the experience to carry out the same role as the other employees. The EAT overturned this decision and found that the employer’s pool selection was fair. Here’s what IDS had to say on the matter:
“…in Lomond Motors Ltd v Clark the EAT overturned a tribunal's decision that the pool should have included an extra person, on the ground that her role was not properly interchangeable with the others.” (paragraph 8.95)
“It could be argued that the existence of a mobility clause in an employee's contract of employment means that he or she could, or should, be included in a selection pool established in respect of a redundancy situation arising at a site to which he or she could be transferred; or, conversely, that he or she should be transferred out of a redundancy selection pool in reliance on such a clause. This argument was canvassed before the EAT in Lomond Motors Ltd v Clark. However, the EAT thought that there was ‘considerable force' in the submission that mobility clauses are not relevant to an assessment of whether or not an employer has acted within the band of reasonableness in selecting the pool.” (paragraph 8.104)