Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Background:
The claimant was dismissed during her maternity leave by reason of redundancy. The claimant argued that the redundancy was a sham and that she suffered less favourable treatment because of her sex and/or because of the pregnancy and maternity.
The issue arose when a new Chief Executive sought to recruit a Business and Financial Analyst during the claimant’s maternity. During the process it was then decided that it would include the claimant’s position. The claimant was then informed that she was at risk of redundancy due to the decision to amalgamate her role with a new role. She was invited to apply for the new role. The claimant did not apply but instead stated that the redundancy was a sham. A stand-off then took place until the claimant was dismissed with immediate effect on 31st July 2019.
Outcome:
The Tribunal, at first instance, dismissed the claim. They held that Reg 29 if the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 did not apply on the basis that there was no suitable alternative vacancy. They did find that the burden of proof did shift to the respondent but held that the redundancy was not a device to get rid of the claimant and thus dismissed the claims.
The claimant appealed to the EAT. The EAT held that it was a necessary step that the Tribunal would consider whether there was a genuine redundancy situation. There are some cases in which the Tribunal can move straight to suitable alternative vacancy but this was not one of those considering the facts and the claimant’s arguments. The fact that it had failed to do so there was no way in which the Tribunal could find if there was a genuine redundancy and whether the basis of the decision was on fair grounds. As a result, the case was remitted back to the Tribunal.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
A question regularly raised when doing discussions or events on redundancy is whether a member of staff on maternity can be dismissed by reason of redundancy. The answer to that is yes, but that there must be a genuine redundancy situation and the basis upon which individuals are selected for redundancy is fair. It goes without saying that the reason for selection cannot be the pregnancy or the maternity leave. In this case, the need to demonstrate a genuine redundancy scenario is one that the Tribunal then has to determine and as it was not done it led to the decision being unsafe.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial