160:
J.'s view on that. It must depend on all the circumstances whether the reorganisation was such that the only sensible thing to do was to terminate the employee's contract unless he would agree to a new arrangement. It seems to me that that paragraph may well be satisfied, and indeed was satisfied in this case, having regard to the commercial necessity of rearrangements being made and the termination of the relationship with the
Cornish Mutual, and the setting up of a new relationship via the National Farmers' Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd. On that rearrangement being made, it was absolutely essential for new contracts to be made with the existing group secretaries: and the only way to deal with it was to terminate the agreements and offer them reasonable new ones. It seems to me that that would be, and was, a substantial reason of a kind sufficient to justify this kind of dismissal. I stress the word âkind.â
39:
159:
Certainly, I think, everyone would agree with that. But in the present case Arnold J. expanded it a little so as not to limit it to where it came absolutely to a standstill but to where there was some sound, good business reason for the reorganisation. I must say I see no reason to differ from Arnold
144:
The question which is being discussed in this case is whether the reorganisation of the business which the
National Farmers' Union felt they had to undertake in 1976, coupled with Mr. Hollister's refusal to accept the new agreement, was a substantial reason of such a kind as to justify the dismissal
155:âWhere there has been a properly consulted-upon reorganisation which, if it is not done, is going to bring the whole business to a standstill, a failure to go along with the new arrangements may *551 well â it is not bound to, but it may well â constitute âsome other substantial reason.ââ
135:
The Court of Appeal held the dismissal was a âsubstantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissalâ within EPA 1974 Sch 1, para 6(1)(b). There was no requirement to consult the claimant specifically. Consultation was one factor among many that could be taken into account.
126:
The
Tribunal found the dismissal was for some other substantial reason and there was no duty to consult. The EAT held that the dismissal was for a substantial reason, but the level of consultation was not enough to discharge the onus that their action was reasonable.
122:
secretaries. Mr
Hollister said the new terms were insufficient, and he refused to accept. He thought though there was a slight increase in pay, the pension entitlements were not as good. He was dismissed, and so claimed it was unfair.
151:
where it was recognised by the court that reorganisation of business may on occasion be a sufficient reason justifying the dismissal of an employee. They went on to say, at p. 420:
215:
573:
118:
Association Co for members. The secretaries complained their pay was lower than in the rest of the country, so head office negotiated new terms, but without consulting the
568:
478:
199:
462:
218:
111:
578:
563:
246:
326:
286:
192:
49:
352:
300:
434:
366:
420:
185:
147:
394:
223:
380:
583:
448:
274:
232:
137:
145:
of the employee. Upon that there have only been one or two cases. One we were particularly referred to was
406:
340:
314:
260:
17:
384:
356:
512:
496:
370:
164:
410:
304:
140:
held that a business reorganisation like this could be âsome other substantial reasonâ.
438:
115:
330:
290:
557:
507:
492:
236:
99:
468:
264:
250:
452:
424:
38:
177:
119:
181:
114:
as a secretary, earning commission on getting insurance with
81:
71:
63:
55:
45:
31:
102:case concerning redundancy and unfair dismissal.
480:Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2)
142:
193:
8:
574:United Kingdom employment contract case law
464:Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council
220:Termination of Employment Convention, 1982
200:
186:
178:
37:
28:
569:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
148:Ellis v Brighton Co-operative Society Ltd
110:Mr Hollister worked in Cornwall for the
523:
247:R (Seymour-Smith) v SS for Employment
7:
327:Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co Ltd
287:Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
50:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
95:Hollister v National Farmersâ Union
32:Hollister v National Farmersâ Union
18:Hollister v National Farmersâ Union
353:British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
25:
301:Buckland v Bournemouth University
435:Port of London Authority v Payne
367:Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
579:1979 in United Kingdom case law
421:Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
564:United Kingdom labour case law
395:British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift
1:
381:Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
170:Sir Stanley Rees concurred.
449:Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson
275:Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham
600:
233:Employment Rights Act 1996
489:
475:
459:
445:
431:
417:
403:
391:
377:
363:
349:
337:
323:
311:
297:
283:
271:
257:
243:
230:
213:
86:
76:
36:
112:National Farmersâ Union
407:HSBC Bank plc v Madden
341:Ford v Warwickshire CC
208:Unfair dismissal cases
162:
157:
153:
87:Dismissal, redundancy
315:Adamas Ltd v Cheung
261:Gisda Cyf v Barratt
584:Lord Denning cases
503:
502:
91:
90:
16:(Redirected from
591:
540:
537:
531:
530:ICR 542, 550-551
528:
513:Unfair dismissal
497:unfair dismissal
481:
465:
221:
202:
195:
188:
179:
41:
29:
21:
599:
598:
594:
593:
592:
590:
589:
588:
554:
553:
548:
543:
538:
534:
529:
525:
521:
504:
499:
485:
479:
471:
463:
455:
441:
427:
413:
399:
387:
373:
359:
345:
333:
319:
307:
293:
279:
267:
253:
239:
226:
219:
209:
206:
176:
138:Lord Denning MR
133:
108:
77:Lord Denning MR
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
597:
595:
587:
586:
581:
576:
571:
566:
556:
555:
552:
551:
547:
544:
542:
541:
532:
522:
520:
517:
516:
515:
510:
501:
500:
490:
487:
486:
476:
473:
472:
460:
457:
456:
446:
443:
442:
432:
429:
428:
418:
415:
414:
404:
401:
400:
392:
389:
388:
378:
375:
374:
364:
361:
360:
350:
347:
346:
338:
335:
334:
324:
321:
320:
312:
309:
308:
298:
295:
294:
284:
281:
280:
272:
269:
268:
258:
255:
254:
244:
241:
240:
231:
228:
227:
214:
211:
210:
207:
205:
204:
197:
190:
182:
175:
172:
132:
129:
116:Cornish Mutual
107:
104:
89:
88:
84:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
596:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
565:
562:
561:
559:
550:
549:
545:
536:
533:
527:
524:
518:
514:
511:
509:
508:UK labour law
506:
505:
498:
494:
493:UK labour law
488:
483:
482:
474:
470:
467:
466:
458:
454:
451:
450:
444:
440:
437:
436:
430:
426:
423:
422:
416:
412:
411:EWCA Civ 3030
409:
408:
402:
397:
396:
390:
386:
383:
382:
376:
372:
369:
368:
362:
358:
355:
354:
348:
343:
342:
336:
332:
329:
328:
322:
317:
316:
310:
306:
303:
302:
296:
292:
289:
288:
282:
277:
276:
270:
266:
263:
262:
256:
252:
249:
248:
242:
238:
234:
229:
225:
222:
217:
212:
203:
198:
196:
191:
189:
184:
183:
180:
173:
171:
168:
166:
161:
156:
152:
150:
149:
141:
139:
130:
128:
124:
121:
117:
113:
105:
103:
101:
100:UK labour law
98:ICR 542 is a
97:
96:
85:
80:
75:
72:Case opinions
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
535:
526:
477:
461:
447:
433:
419:
405:
393:
379:
365:
351:
339:
325:
313:
305:EWCA Civ 121
299:
285:
273:
259:
245:
169:
163:
158:
154:
146:
143:
134:
125:
109:
94:
93:
92:
59:9 March 1979
26:
439:EWCA Civ 26
167:concurred.
165:Eveleigh LJ
558:Categories
546:References
331:EWCA Civ 3
291:EWCA Civ 2
453:EW Misc 1
539:IRLR 419
174:See also
131:Judgment
120:Cornwall
82:Keywords
64:Citation
484:ICR 110
469:UKHL 36
398:IRLR 91
385:ICR 156
357:ICR 303
344:2 AC 71
318:UKPC 32
278:ICR 183
265:UKSC 41
251:UKHL 12
67:ICR 542
56:Decided
425:UKHL 8
371:ICR 17
237:94-132
519:Notes
224:C 158
106:Facts
46:Court
495:and
491:see
235:ss
216:ILO
560::
201:e
194:t
187:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
