University and College Union v University of Stirling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2015 |
| Date | 29 April 2015 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Supreme Court
Before Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes
An employee was dismissed "as redundant", for the purposes of an employer's duty to consult on proposed collective redundancies, if the reason for his dismissal was not something to do with him personally, such as something he was or something he had done, but was a reason relating to the employer, such as his need to effect business change in some respect.
The Supreme Court so held in allowing an appeal by the claimant, the University and College Union, against the decision of an Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session (Lord Brodie, Lord Bracadale and Lord Drummond Young) (2014 SLT 352) which upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Lady Smith, Mr J Keenan and Mrs G Smith)ICR ([2012] ICR 803) overturning the decision of an employment tribunal sitting in Glasgow on November 26, 2010, at a pre-hearing review in a test case involving four employees of the University of Stirling, that dismissal follow ing the non-renewal of a limited term contract was not excluded from the definition of "dismissal as redundant" in section 195(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as substituted by section 34(5) of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, for the purpo ses of the employer's duty to consult under section 188, as substituted by regulation 3 of the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No 2587).
Mr Caspar Glyn, QC and Mr Tom Brown (both of the English Bar) for the claimant; Mr Brian Napier, QC and Mr Hugh Olson (both of the Scots Bar) for the employer.
LADY HALE, with whom the other members of the court agreed, said that an employer which proposed to "dismiss as redundant" 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less had an obligation to consult the appropriate representatives, usually a recognised t rade union, of any of the employees who might be affected: section 188(1) of the 1992 Act.
The question was whether those employees included people employed on limited term contracts whose contracts would come to an end without renewal during the relevant period. That in turn depended upon two questions, one straightforward and one not so straightforward.
The first was whether the expiry and...
To continue reading
Request your trial