xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more
Law Cases
Labour Law Cases
Job security Cases

Williams v Compare Maxam [1982] IRLR 83

Country:
United Kingdom
By Oxbridge Law Team
BW J

  • Plaintiffs were dismissed when a Defendant decided to cut labour costs to keep the business viable.

  • Team leaders were asked to decide who to retain in the interests of the business (no criteria - just personal preference) and the trade union wasn’t consulted.

  • EAT held that Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed because the redundancy was carried out in contravention of the objective (industrial) standards of fair treatment generally accepted by employers.

    • If no tribunal, properly directing itself in law could come to the decision, then it can be appealed (NB appeals against tribunals can only be on the basis of error of law).

BW J

  • Objective industry standards can be applied by the employment tribunals, which include lay experts in their composition.

  • The employer has to show that there was sufficient reason to sack the applicant employee in particular (not employees in general).

  • A redundancy will be reasonable if Plaintiff consulted with employees and unions so as to consider alternatives, e.g. reorganisations.

    • The employer must select objectively fair criteria and apply those, considering representations made by the union and possible alternatives.

    • Selection must not be based on personal whim. 

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch

Similar cases

Polkey v Dayton
Plaintiff was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy (no prior warning, etc.). Defendant argued that this was fair because it was of ‘urgent necessity’ to the business. HL held that the case had to b...
North Riding Garages v Butterwick
Plaintiff was sacked because he couldn’t cope with new practices required by the new owners of a business, including increased paperwork and giving estimates to customers in advance. Plaintiff then e...
UK Coal Mining Ltd v NUM
Defendant decided to shut a mine down with large numbers of resulting redundancies. The union, Plaintiff, argued that the traditional understanding of s.188, that there was no need for Defendant to c...
Simmons v Hoover
Plaintiff went on a strike and Defendant (employer) took that to be a repudiatory breach of contract. The EAT accepted that to go on strike was to deliberately breach one’s contract, so that the empl...
Murray v Foyle Meats
Plaintiffs had contracts with Defendant to work in a slaughterhouse but the contracts contained a flexibility clause, saying Plaintiffs could be required to work in other parts of the plant. The mark...

Related free notes samples

Economic Restructuring Redundan...
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all
Job Security Notes
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all
Unfair Dismissal Including Empi...
Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all

logo

Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.

©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.