Lloyd v Taylor Woodrow Construction

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Quantity Surveyor, based at a site in South Wales. Another Quantity Surveyor, the Appellant's colleague, was transferred to the same site in 1995. By September 1997, the Respondent anticipated redundancy due to three contracts ending, requiring only one Quantity Surveyor. The Director in charge applied four selection criteria—length of service, attendance and disciplinary record, suitability/capability, and mobility—to choose between the two surveyors.

The Appellant had nine years of service and was older, less mobile, and not computer literate, whereas the colleague had 19 years of service, was fully engaged on a contract running until 2003, and possessed computer skills. The Appellant was informed of potential redundancy and a consultation process was initiated, although there was a factual dispute about the details of the initial meeting where this was communicated.

Alternative employment was offered but declined by the Appellant due to unwillingness to travel beyond a 50-mile radius from his home. The Respondent confirmed redundancy and dismissal occurred in October 1997. Following dismissal, the Appellant requested and participated in an 'Inquiry' meeting and two appeal hearings, all of which upheld the dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a failure to disclose the selection criteria prior to dismissal in a redundancy case can be remedied by subsequent appeal hearings held after dismissal.
2. Whether the Employment Tribunal's findings regarding the fairness of the redundancy process and consultation were perverse.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the dismissal was engineered and not truly for redundancy.
• He argued that failing to disclose the selection criteria until eight weeks after dismissal could not remedy the lack of consultation prior to dismissal.
• The Appellant disputed the selection criteria and challenged the fairness of the process in appeal hearings.
• He suggested that redundancy cases should be distinguished from conduct or capability dismissals regarding the applicability of cure by appeal.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent asserted that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal and that the selection criteria were fairly and objectively applied.
• They argued that the duty to consult was discharged sufficiently, and the defect in consultation was remedied during the appeal hearings.
• They relied on established case law to support the principle that procedural defects at dismissal may be cured by a full rehearing on appeal.
• The Respondent maintained that the offer of alternative employment and consultation process met statutory requirements.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified that the Employment Tribunal failed to clearly separate findings of fact from evidence, a procedural deficiency but one that did not affect the substantive outcome. The Tribunal's four selection criteria were fairly applied, and redundancy was confirmed as the genuine reason for dismissal.

The court considered whether the failure to disclose selection criteria prior to dismissal could be remedied by subsequent appeal hearings. It relied on established case law establishing that procedural defects at dismissal may be cured by a full rehearing on appeal, provided it is a rehearing and not merely a review. The court found no principled distinction between redundancy and other dismissal reasons in this context.

The court rejected the Appellant’s contention that the consultation defect was incurable post-dismissal, endorsing the Tribunal's finding that the defect was remedied during the appeal hearings. It further held that the Tribunal’s factual findings were reasonable and not perverse, dismissing the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is to DISMISS THE APPEAL.

This decision confirms that in redundancy dismissals, a failure to consult or disclose selection criteria prior to dismissal may be remedied by a full rehearing on appeal after dismissal, aligning redundancy procedure with principles established for other dismissal reasons. The ruling directly affects the parties by upholding the fairness of the Respondent’s redundancy process and does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing law to redundancy appeals.