THIS WORK IS PROPERTY OF THE ACADEMIC PAPERS UK,
https://www.theacademicpapers.co.uk/
LEE SIMPSON IS NOT THE FIRST OWNER
Report on the Case of Redundancy for Mrs. Ciara Adeleke
Abstract
The following report addresses the legal and fair challenges regarding Mrs. Ciara Adeleke’s redundancy from Townie Bank in April 2025. The report analyses the legal framework of redundancy in England and Wales along with the consultation process, selection criteria, redundancy pay and notice period employed for Mrs. Adeleke and entitled under Employment Rights Act (1996). Potential complications with the selection process and consultation are described in the report as possibly invalidating the redundancy by being procedurally and substantively unfair. The appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the available possible action the Mrs Adeleke can take is recommended in this report as well.
Table of Content
Legal Framework of Redundancy. 4
Redundancy Procedure and Employer Obligations 5
Application to Mrs. Adeleke’s Case. 6
Introduction
The employment law in England and Wales is dynamic in optimising the interest of employees and employers while ensuring effective protection of employment relationship (McMullen, 2011). Mrs. Ciara Adeleke, referred as Mrs. Adeleke in the subsequent parts of report, is a longstanding employee of Townie Bank facing the redundancy clause in company’s Liverpool office which enables her to defend her case under employment law of England and Wales. The following report draws upon primary legislation, case law, and secondary academic sources to assess the fairness of company’s decision in downsizing and deciding for redundancy of Mrs. Adeleke’s role in Liverpool’s branch while she had served in various different locations for the company while expanding to diversified roles from her entry level position in the company. The report primarily identified key issues such as consultation process, objectivity of selection criteria, and adherence to statutory redundancy rights for the ultimate decision to embrace redundancy of management position of Mrs. Adeleke in which she was recently promoted by the company while being transferred from the German market after securing her master’s degree in business administration.
Discussion
Legal Framework of Redundancy
Redundancy is primarily governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) in sections 139 to 141. An employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy under section 139(1), if it is wholly or mainly attributable to the employer ceasing or having the intention of ceasing the business or the demand for employee’s contractual responsibilities are no longer needed in the achievement of organisational objective. Moreover, the statutory definition is used to provide a shield against redundancy which cannot be based on individual performance or misconduct but only on genuine changes to the organisational structure or economic condition of the organisation (Ferdosi, 2021). Redundancy takes place in a variety of scenarios in organisational roles through business closures, office relocations, automation of roles, and reductions in the workforce as a result of financial constraints (Atkinson, 2022). Such dismissals are subject to the legal framework, which establishes redundancy under ERA (1996) for transparency in practices to protect employees from arbitrary decisions.
In case law such as Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156 guidelines have been laid for the fair selection for redundancy that includes fair and agreed procedures and alternative employment. Therefore, when employees are made redundant, employers must apply fair selection for redundancy. These may be skills, qualifications, experience or attendance records. Of course, subjective criteria or personal bias are not allowed. It showcases the willingness of the ERA (1996) to optimise employment relationship while actively advocating for optimisation of organisational processes while protecting the interest of employees within the economy. Furthermore, there is a legal requirement of meaningful consultation where 20 or more redundancies occur in a 90-day period amongst employees or their representative under Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act (1992, s.188). Consultation must take place before such decisions are taken and must involve ways of avoiding or reducing redundancies and mitigating impact on the regulation of economy while protecting employment relationship (Stevens, 2022).
Redundancy Procedure and Employer Obligations
Under sections 188 to 198 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA 1992), employers are required to consult with affected employees or their trade union representatives before making 20 or more employees redundant within a 90 day period (Jefferson, 2021). The initiation of consultation with the employees should be before the first dismissal comes into effect and lasts at least for 30 days (Rainone, 2022). It allows the employees to realise the embracement of redundancy clause being exercised by their respective organisation. However, if the numbers of employees are more than 100, the period in such cases increases to 45 days. The consultation must be meaningful, and include discussion on the reasons for redundancy, the numbers of employees affected and categories of employees as well, and avoiding or reducing the number of redundancies. Mugford v Midland Bank PLC [1997] ICR 399 clearly established as precedent that the dismissals may be unfair and a protective award can be in favour of the dismissed employees.
The selection criteria of redundancy should be objective, fair and according to the legislations in England and Wales to optimise the benefit for employees and employers (Bennett et al., 2024). Qualifications, skills, performance, attendance and disciplinary record can be included in the criteria to decide redundancy measures. The most important point is that criteria must be measurable and be free from bias or subjectivity. Key principles developed from Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156 were to agree criteria with employee representatives, apply them consistently and to consider alternative employment. The process will be seen as unfair, if criteria are not clear to be assessed or employees do not know the basis on which they were assessed. Furthermore, under the Equality Act 2010, dismissals on the grounds of personal conflicts without reason, as well as on the basis of age, gender or membership of a trade union, may amount to unlawful discrimination. Thus, the perception of legislation in England and Wales is widely considered to optimise transparency in decision making that marginalises the presence of personal biasness associated with the decision while ensuring that the decision in entirely objective oriented.
ERA 1996 covers that an employee is entitled to the amount of statutory notice per year of continuous employment, but for not fewer that one week, and not more than 12 weeks (ERA, 1996, s. 86(1)(a)). Furthermore, statutory redundancy pay is payable to employees under section 162 of ERA 1996 as well (Nath and Lockwood, 2022). It is based upon the employee’s age, length of continuous service up to a maximum of 20 years and weekly pay, subject to a statutory limit. However, under the statutory formula, Mrs. Adeleke, who has been working for 35 years, would be entitled to the maximum permissible while being entitled to the enhancements for years worked above 41. The amount may fall below her legal entitlement if Townie Bank paid only one week’s pay per year and did not consider these factors. The union is equally concerned that calculations for redundancy pay should be compliant with up to date statutory caps which are changed by the government annually. Thus, the protection of Mrs. Adeleke can be comprehensively achieved with active embracement of ERA (1996) along with Equality Act (2010) that determines the ethical dimension for redundancy of her role in Townie Bank.
Application to Mrs. Adeleke’s Case
From the information provided in the case, there is no evidence that the Townie Bank either solicited or conducted an individual or collective consultation before placing Mrs. Adeleke at risk of redundancy. A clear procedural failing can be noticed if company failed to commence meaningful consultation or informing the employer representative with the proposed redundancy, under TULRCA 1992. The law demands that consultations are genuine as consultations are supposed to start at a formative stage, providing employees a chance to influence the decision making process. Furthermore, it allows to balance between the right of employees and employers to ensure effectiveness in regulation of economy. Lack of consultation in the context of Mrs. Adeleke’s case could lead to a protective award of up to 90 days’ gross pay per employee. Considering the large amount of redundancy announced by the organisation that impacted 50 employees, Townie Bank is within the threshold that triggers the need for collective consultation under ERA 1996. As a result, the breach could be used to support a claim for a protective award as identified in Mugford v Midland Bank PLC [1997] ICR 399.
Listing Mrs. Adeleke in redundancy by Townie Bank has no indication of fair selection criteria or objective oriented decision due to her substantial contributions to the company, wide ranging skill set, clear disciplinary record and long service through numerous departments making her a valuable asset in the company. However, the presence of strained relationship with the office director makes her the suspicious that that the decision was born out of victimisation or mere personal bias. Such a treatment could be an substantively identified with unfair dismissal under ERA 1996, section 98(4). From British Aerospace plc v Green [1995] ICR 1006, it is observed that the need for employers to be able to justify and provide evidence of selection decisions with respect to long serving and experienced staff is essential for redundancy.
Moreover, The offer of one week’s pay for every year of service is in line with the statutory minimum under ERA 1996, section 162. Contrary to the arbitrary limitations under ERA, it also emphasises on focusing on the employee’s age and years that have served the organisation for 20 years, it allows higher redundancy package for employees who have worked past the age of 41. Mrs Adeleke worked for 35 years, so if she is over 41 years of age, she would be entitled to 1.5 weeks’ pay per year post 41. Therefore, it is determined that Townie Bank’s calculation would have failed to take account of ERA (1996) due to its offer of one week pay per year served in the organisation. Therefore, it significantly undervalues her entitlement that results in significant credibility to challenge the decision of the organisation regarding her redundancy. In the current tax year, the statutory cap on weekly pay also needs to be verified to assess its effect on the final award.
Cumulative effect of the preceding argument suggests a plausible claim for unfair dismissal. The dismissal can be declared as unfair under ERA 1996, section 98(4), on the basis that if the dismissal was ‘wrong in principle’ in accordance to ERA including identification of improper motives, such as personal grievance of the key stakeholder or if the dismissal was procedurally unfair, in regards to particular consultation and selection. Therefore, it can be stated that the lack of transparency and due process and Mrs. Adeleke’s excellent employment tenure, there are strong grounds to challenge the redundancy decision in front of an Employment Tribunal that can readily improve her chances to turn the decision in her favour, primarily due to procedural gaps.
Recommendations
As identified in the case of Mrs. Adeleke, it can be recommended to the employee that she must re-establish the communication with the decision maker and request for written explanation of the selection criteria embodied by the company for redundancy decisions. Subsequently, the employee should immediately appeal the redundancy through internal grievance procedure that is practiced under the organisational framework. After observing unresponsiveness of the company, she can file for movement in Employment Tribunal and challenge the decision under section 98 of ERA (1996). Furthermore, she can also file for potential age discrimination claims as well while mentioning the internal grit between the management and the employee for effective overturning of the decision.
Conclusion
The redundancy case of Mrs. Adeleke lacks desired level of transparency from the context of the organisation. Moreover, the procedural limitations and the increased contribution of the employee being transferred from one place to another during her tenure further marginalises the position of the organisation in establishing her redundancy. Thus, the claim can be readily made in the Employment Tribunal regarding redundancy to effectively facilitate and optimise level of transparency in decision making of Townie Bank in the UK.
References
Journal/Articles
Atkinson, J. (2022). Zero-hours contracts and English employment Law: Developments and possibilities. European Labour Law Journal, 13(3), 347-374.
Bennett, T., Saundry, R., and Prior, M. (2024). Managing Employment Relations: Theory, Policies and Practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
Ferdosi, M. (2021). The development of employment protection legislation in the United Kingdom (1963-2013). Labor History, 62(4), 511-531.
Jefferson, M. (2021). Employment Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide. Oxford University Press.
McMullen, J. (2011). Redundancy: The law and practice. Oxford University Press.
Nath, V., and Lockwood, G. (2022). Implications of the UK Equality Law for tele-homeworking: COVID-19 and beyond. International Journal of Law and Management, 64(2), 253-272.
Rainone, S. (2022). Enforcing EU information and consultation rights. Effective Enforcement of EU Labour Law, Hart, Portland.
Stevens, M. (2022). Strategic redundancy implementation: Re-focus, re-organise and re-build. Routledge.
Case Laws
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156
Mugford v Midland Bank PLC [1997] ICR 399
British Aerospace plc v Green [1995] ICR 1006
