[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Corrigan v. Liverpool Magistrates Court [1999] UKEAT 885_99_0111 (1 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/885_99_0111.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 885_99_111, [1999] UKEAT 885_99_0111

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant


 


JUDGE WILSON:

1. This is the case of Mrs Corrigan against Liverpool Magistrate Court. The Tribunal has received a letter from Mr Corrigan, on behalf of his wife, referring to his Notice of Appeal dated 21 July 1999 and enclosed documents.
2. He has not appeared, nor has she, and we have therefore dealt with the matter on the basis of those submissions which we have taken in detail and compared with the reasons set out in extended form in the decision given by the Employment Tribunal on the 11 June 1999.
3. That decision was sent to the parties on the 14 June 1999 and is a comprehensive decision. It begins by setting out the facts of the matter, which concerned a re-organisation and restructuring of the staff serving the Liverpool Magistrates Court. The Tribunal, hearing the matter set out the facts which they had found proved in paragraph 8 (i) - (xviii) of the decision, and thereafter directed itself according to the law which it had set out at the beginning of its decision.
4. In particular, the Employment Tribunal found that in early 1997, there was need for a new integrated team structure involving the creation of an entirely new management structure. There then began a process of consultation and Mrs Corrigan was invited to apply for the new post of Associate Integrated Team Leader, but did not do so. There was then an invitation to apply for one of the new posts of Supervisor, and on the 7 May 1997 there was a meeting following which a letter was sent to her, stating amongst other things that, along with all staff, she had seen the draft new structure. All those who currently held supervisory posts would have to apply for a new post and she was strongly advised to apply because the old posts were going to become redundant.
5. There was another meeting later in August and the upshot was that Mrs Corrigan took no action as suggested, although the respondent wanted her to accept redeployment as a team member within Crime Team One. The appellant herself did not wish, apparently, to take the redundancy route. However as a letter written to her in October 1997 stated, "if you continue not to wish to accept redeployment, the Court will have no other option but to follow the redundancy route". That is what in fact happened. The decision of the Tribunal is summed up in paragraph 10 and we can do no better than quote it in our judgment today.

"Applying the relevant law to the above facts we find as follows. First redundancy provides a prima facie or potentially fair reason for dismissal but it is not, of course, automatically fair. A dismissal may be rendered unfair by reason, for example, of lack of warning or consultation. A Tribunal would also consider, in such circumstances as these, whether alternative work was available. As to whether or not there was a redundancy situation it has to be born in mind that Section 139(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in fact covers 2 separate situations namely…"

6. Those two situations are then set out. The Employment Tribunal then said:-

"An employer should do what he can so far as is reasonable to seek alternative work. That, we consider, and so find, the respondent did in this case. It made it clear throughout that it was not seeking to put anyone in a redundancy situation. The applicant had the opportunity, along with everyone else, to apply for posts within the new structure with, at the very least, salary protection for one year and then, beyond that the possibility of substantive re-grading which would mean that she was no worse off financially than in her existing situation. The offers made to the applicant were, we find, reasonable offers and her refusal of them was unreasonable. Finally, warning and consultation. The importance of that is always very much in our minds in redundancy situations. In this respect we find no fault whatsoever with the respondents; their efforts to consult and inform throughout were commendable both in content and in the patience which they displayed. No one could have been kept better informed of what was going on than the applicant. Taking all these matters into account the Tribunal concludes, and so finds, that this application fails and is accordingly dismissed".

7. We find nothing in the written submissions made on behalf of the proposed appellant to suggest that the Tribunal fell into any error of law and accordingly, even if this matter were fully argued it would have no hope of success and must accordingly be dismissed today.