Availability of Furlough Scheme Rendered Redundancy Unreasonable

A great many businesses were plunged into grave financial difficulties by the COVID-19 pandemic, but was it reasonable to make employees redundant at a time when the furlough scheme provided a less draconian option? An Employment Tribunal (ET) considered that issue in a ground-breaking…

Jan 27, 2022

Pexels rodnae productions 6129205 1024x683

A great many businesses were plunged into grave financial difficulties by the COVID-19 pandemic, but was it reasonable to make employees redundant at a time when the furlough scheme provided a less draconian option? An Employment Tribunal (ET) considered that issue in a ground-breaking case.

A woman who was employed as a practice manager by a consultant surgeon was dismissed after the pandemic caused a downturn in the practice’s financial position. After she launched proceedings, an ET found that the surgeon had decided to cut staffing costs and that the reason for her dismissal was redundancy.

However, the ET ruled that the surgeon’s failure to turn his mind to the impact of the flexible furlough scheme then in operation rendered her dismissal unfair. If she had been placed on furlough, the surgeon would have been able to bring her back to work part time whilst still having the right to claim government support providing 80 per cent of her pay for the hours she did not work.

Had he considered the furlough scheme and applied it to the woman, it was more likely than not that she would have worked part time and resumed her full-time position when the pandemic receded and the practice’s income picked up. His decision to make her redundant was, in those circumstances, unreasonable. If not agreed, the amount of her compensation would be decided at a further hearing.

A Finding of Unfair Dismissal Does Not Always Result in Compensation

An award of compensation might be thought to follow a finding of unfair dismissal as surely as night follows day. However, as a case concerning a care worker accused of stealing money from a vulnerable client showed, that is not always the case. The worker had, on three occasions, used ATMs to withdraw a total of £800 from the client’s bank account. She was adamant that she had been told to do so by the client, to whom she had handed over the money. She was investigated by the police but was…

Health and Safety – Forklift Truck Driver Sacked for Whistleblowing

Workplace whistleblowers operate very much in the public interest but, all too often, they are punished rather than praised for their activities. The point was made by the case of a veteran forklift truck driver who was summarily dismissed after repeatedly alerting his employer to a serious health and safety risk. After witnessing an incident in which a pallet weighing up to 500 kg fell from a height of nine metres, the driver three times expressed concern to his employer that pallets were…

Service Charges Dispute Focuses on Report of ‘Intolerable’ Fire Risk

Tenants are only obliged to pay service charges that have been reasonably incurred. That principle was the focus of a guideline case concerning two apartment blocks which, according to an expert report, posed an intolerable fire risk. Previous fire inspections of the blocks had uncovered no serious problems so that the report, which found combustible materials in their external walls, came as a bolt from the blue. The landlord’s response was to place a 24-hour waking watch on the blocks as an…