‘Sham’ Redundancy

‘Sham' RedundancyIt is common for employers to cite redundancy in order to get rid of workers they do not like and when cases of this nature come before an Employment Tribunal (ET), its job is to find out where the truth lies. In Billig v Gardline, an Employment Tribunal found that a supposed redundancy was nothing more than a sham.

Mrs. Billig had worked for the company for some years and there had never been any complaints about her work. However, a personality clash developed after a man with whom she had a difficult relationship was promoted to head of her department. She had lodged a formal grievance against him and claimed that his bullying attitude led her to go on sick leave suffering from stress.

After several months of absence, she told her employer that she was fit to return to the office but was immediately informed that she was at risk of redundancy. After her employment was terminated, she launched ET proceedings claiming unfair dismissal.

Following a preliminary hearing, the ET condemned as nonsense the multitude of reasons put forward by the employer to try to justify her redundancy. It found that the real reason for her dismissal was that her boss simply did not want her in the business any more. There was no true redundancy situation and the likelihood was that, after she went on sick leave, her employer had hoped that she would not return.

Says Rodney Hylton-Potts ”If you think your redundancy is not genuine please contact us”. We offer fixed fees and give excellent value. We operate a free and confidential 24 hour email service. Just click on law@hylton-potts.com  or, during office hours there is a free and confidential legal helpline 020 7381 8111.