How can we help?


Reduced amount of work, same number of employees is still a redundancy, Court says

It has been settled law that for there to be a potentially far redundancy dismissal, there has to be a reduced need for employees of “a particular kind”. That covers a situation where, for example, there is a reduced need for plumbers but an increased need for heating engineers, such that overall there is the same total need for employees in the business.

However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has given a ruling that there can still be a redundancy dismissal even where there has only been a reduction in work for the same number of employees to do.

Under S139 (1) (b) (i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy if their dismissal was wholly or mainly because their employer’s requirements for employees doing work of a particular kind has ceased, diminished or is expected to do so.

The leading case of Safeway Stores Plc v Burrell [1997] IRLR 200 EAT confirmed that “it is necessary to look at the overall requirement for employees to do work of a particular kind; not at the amount of work to be done”.

Alyward v Glamorgan Holiday Home Ltd t/a Glamorgan Holiday Hotel EAT/167/02, relying on Safeway, held that a reduction in the number of employees doing the work (i.e. headcount) is required to meet the statutory definition of redundancy.

Now the EAT in Packman t/a Packman Lucas Associates v Fauchon UKEAT/0017/12 say that there is no need for a reduction in headcount to satisfy the statutory definition of redundancy.

FACTS of Packman

Ms Fauchon provided book-keeping services for Packman Lucas Associates. Because of downturn in business Packman had a diminished need for book-keeping and asked Ms Fauchon to significantly reduce her weekly hours. She refused to work reduced hours and was dismissed.

Ms Fauchon brought tribunal proceedings against Packman. The employment tribunal found that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. In reaching its decision, the tribunal referred to Aylward, but did not follow it.

Packman appealed against the tribunal`s decision arguing that Aylward was a binding authority and should have been followed.

Might employers now be able to argue that there can be a redundancy even where an employee has been dismissed and replaced with another employee, provided there has been a significant fall in the amount of work to be done?

The EAT’s decision

The EAT’s view in Packman on the effect of Safeway is that focus must be on the employer’s need for employees generally to do work of a particular kind. The EAT set out that in any event a holistic approach is needed focusing on all words of the statute and not one aspect looking at “two variables that are linked: the employees and the work”.

On the face of it, the EAT’s decision in Packman appears quite controversial with potentially significant effects. Might employers now be able to argue that there can be a redundancy even where an employee has been dismissed and replaced with another employee, provided there has been a significant fall in the amount of work to be done? Might employees be able to claim redundancy pay in situations where they presently cannot?

Perhaps Packman will remain a case limited to its facts. It has to be wondered if a similar result would have been achieved had the tribunal found that the employer was trying to impose a change in working hours in a situation where in reality there was a redundancy situation, hence the dismissal was unfair. The employee would then have received a basic award anyway. Did the EAT really need to revisit the definition of redundancy?

Let’s hope that the law has not be made complicated in one aspect of employment law that we thought had been long settled.

About this article

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

  • 10 April 2024
  • Employment

New Guidance: Confidence to Recruit

The new Government guide in collaboration with the CIPD aims to give employers the confidence to recruit its workforce from a wider range of people including those who may have been overlooked in the past as a problem rather than an asset.

  • 03 April 2024
  • Employment

FAQ’s on the new Carer’s Leave Act

Beginning on 6 April 2024, the Carer’s Leave Act comes into force, meaning carers are now entitled to request 1 week’s unpaid leave to care for their dependants.

  • 26 March 2024
  • Employment

Navigating Neuroinclusion: A Guide for Employers

Over the past few years, we have seen a marked rise in awareness of neurodiversity, as well as campaigns for awareness and inclusion in the workplace for neurodiverse employees.

  • 21 March 2024
  • Employment

TUPE Podcast Series: Who Transfers?

In this fifth podcast in our TUPE Podcast Series, Amanda Glover will be focusing on ‘who transfers’ under TUPE. Looking at the definition of ‘employee’ under TUPE legislation and the tests that apply in deciding if those employees transfer.

  • 20 March 2024
  • Employment

Changes to Employment Laws from April 2024 – are you ready?

There’s a large number of employment law changes coming in April which are set to shake up the workplace. It’s crucial for employers to stay informed and prepared.

  • 19 March 2024
  • Employment

Instant Messaging in the Workplace: Factors to be aware of

Workplaces have changed beyond recognition in the four years since the first COVID-19 lockdowns. This anniversary represents an opportunity to look back at how workplaces have changed in that period, from the increased use of flexible and hybrid working, to the continuing and significant integration of more technology in office-based work.