Gwynedd Council v Shelley Barratt and Other
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Choudhury,Mrs G Smith,Mr M Worthington |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0206/18/VP |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Redundancy,Not landmark |
| Date | 03 June 2020 |
| Published date | 03 June 2020 |
Copyright 2020
Appeal No. UKEAT/0206/18/VP
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 30 January 2020
Judgment handed down on 03 June 2020
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY (PRESIDENT)
MRS G SMITH
MR M WORTHINGTON
GWYNEDD COUNCIL APPELLANT
SHELLEY BARRATT
& OTHER RESPONDENTS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Copyright 2020
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
Mr Owain Rhys James
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Gwynedd Council Legal Services
Council Offices
Shirehall Street
Caernarfon
Gwynedd
LL55 1SH
For the Respondents
Ms Claire Darwin
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Mark Underhill – Principal
Official (Legal & Casework)
NASUWT
Hillscourt Education Centre
Rose Hill
Rednal
Birmingham
B45 8RS
Copyright 2020
SUMMARY
REDUNDANCY
The Claimants were dismissed for redundancy following the closure of the school where they
worked. They were unsuccessful in applying for positions at a new school that opened at the
same location. The Tribunal held that the dismissals were unfair because of the failure to
provide the Claimants with a right of appeal, the absence of consultation and because of the
manner in which they were required to “apply for their own jobs”. The Respondent local
authority appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the assessment
of fairness under s.98(4) of the 1996 Act in that it had treated guidelines as to what an employer
should do in a redundancy dismissal as inflexible legal requirements; and had failed to take
account of the particular limitations on the Respondent’s role in relation to recruitment at a
maintained school.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to fairness. Whilst
some parts of the Tribunal’s judgment might be indicative of a rigid approach, a fair reading of
the whole judgment reveals that it did not treat guideline cases as laying down mandatory
requirements that had to be applied in every case. Whether or not the Respondent acted fairly
in applying that process in the circumstances of this case was to be judged by an application of
s98(4) of the 1996 Act and that is what the Tribunal did. In doing so, it did not err in its
understanding of the relationship between the Respondent and the Governing Bodies of the
schools as set out in the relevant regulations.
To continue reading
Request your trial