Part C Employment law 9: Dismissal and redundancy 151
If the employee's contract has a mobility clause (a clause that allows the employer to change the place of
work) there is no redundancy if the employee is relocated. However, in some cases it might be classed as
constructive dismissal.
A key test for determining whether or not an employee is redundant is to see whether there has been a
reduction of the employers' requirements for employees to work at the place where the person
concerned is employed.
High Table Ltd v Horst and Others 1997
The facts: High Table Ltd, contract caterers, employed waitresses who had worked for several years at one
company. The client company told High Table that the waitresses were no longer required, so they were
dismissed by High Table on the grounds of redundancy. The waitresses, who had mobility clauses in their
contracts, alleged unfair dismissal since High Table had not tried to re-employ them somewhere else.
Decision: The Court of Appeal ruled against them, saying that the place of work was at the client company
premises and the dismissals were for genuine redundancy.
In considering whether the requirements of the business for staff have diminished, it is the overall
position which must be considered. If for example A's job is abolished and A is moved into B's job and B
is dismissed, that is a case of redundancy although B's job continues.
In British Broadcasting Corporation v Farnworth 1998 a radio producer's fixed term contract was not
renewed and the employer advertised for a radio producer with more experience. It was held by the EAT
that the less experienced radio producer was indeed redundant as the requirement for her level of
services had diminished.
If the employer reorganises their business or alters their methods so that the same work has to be done
by different means which are beyond the capacity of the employee, that is not redundancy.
North Riding Garages v Butterwick 1967
The facts: A garage reorganised its working arrangements so that the workshop manager's duties included
more administrative work. He was dismissed when it was found he could not perform these duties.
Decision: His claim for redundancy pay must fail since it was not a case of redundancy.
Vaux and Associated Breweries v Ward 1969
The facts: The owners of a public house renovated their premises and as part of the new image they
dismissed the middle-aged barmaid and replaced her with a younger employee.
Decision: The claim for redundancy pay must fail since the same job still existed.
8.2 Calculation of redundancy pay
Redundancy pay is calculated on the same basis as the basic compensation for unfair dismissal.
8.3 Exceptions to the right to redundancy payment
A person is excluded from having a right to redundancy payment where
They do not fit the definition of 'employee' given in statute
They have not been continuously employed for two years
They have been or could be dismissed for misconduct
An offer to renew the contract is unreasonably refused
Claim is made out of time (after six months)
The employee leaves before being made redundant having been notified of the possibility of
redundancies