Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
Encyclopedia
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal
, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996
.
Tribunal said this was ‘heartless disregard of the provisions of the code of practice’ but that redundancies were necessary.
section 98 it was irrelevant to ask whether a different outcome may have resulted from a proper procedure, and it was not open for a tribunal to ask that. An employer does not act unreasonably if (1) employees who underperform are warned and given an opportunity to improve (2) employees who engage in misconduct are investigated and given a hearing (3) employees who are redundant are given good warning and a consultation with steps to minimise losses. But if the end result would be the same, then this will go to remedy not liability:
'
Unfair dismissal
Unfair dismissal is the term used in UK labour law to describe an employer's action when terminating an employee's employment contrary to the requirements of the Employment Rights Act 1996...
, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Rights Act 1996
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify the existing law on individual rights in UK labour law. Previous statutes, dating from the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, included the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, the...
.
Facts
Mr Polkey drove a van for 4 years until told to come to the manager’s office and that he was redundant on the spot.Tribunal said this was ‘heartless disregard of the provisions of the code of practice’ but that redundancies were necessary.
Judgment
Lord Bridge held that on the proper construction of the fairness test in the predecessor to the Employment Rights Act 1996Employment Rights Act 1996
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify the existing law on individual rights in UK labour law. Previous statutes, dating from the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, included the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, the...
section 98 it was irrelevant to ask whether a different outcome may have resulted from a proper procedure, and it was not open for a tribunal to ask that. An employer does not act unreasonably if (1) employees who underperform are warned and given an opportunity to improve (2) employees who engage in misconduct are investigated and given a hearing (3) employees who are redundant are given good warning and a consultation with steps to minimise losses. But if the end result would be the same, then this will go to remedy not liability:
'