Every so often your sense of certainty is shaken. For most people this usually involves profound life changing experiences but for lawyers who don’t get out much this usually comes in the form of appeal court decisions. Such a decision is Home Office v Evans [2008] IRLR 59 (Evans). I found this authority whilst preparing the notes that have kept me away from my blog over the last few weeks.
Evans involved the use of an express mobility clause to avoid making the employee redundant. This clause permitted the Home Office to transfer the employee to any civil service post whether in the UK or abroad. This case involved the proposed redeployment of immigration officers from Waterloo to Heathrow when the international station closed.
The question for the Court of Appeal was how redundancy interacts with a mobility clause. The Court took a practical approach and found that where such a clause existed, the activation of the clause to avoid redundancy was permissible. This decision appears to be an unwelcome return to the contract test. After all there was no longer a requirement for immigration officers at Waterloo as the terminal had closed.
Added to this is the Court of Appeals apparent failure to take account of High Table Ltd v Horst [1997] IRLR 513 a case where the employer was not permitted to use a mobility clause to avoid paying a redundancy payment to an employee who had always worked at the site which was being closed.
As Lord Justice Peter Gibson remarked at paragraph 22:
“It would be unfortunate if the law were to encourage the inclusion of mobility clauses in contracts of employment to defeat genuine redundancy claims.”
Evans may best be explained on its particular facts nevertheless this case does raise the obvious question. If the definition of redundancy is so simple as explained by Lord Irvine in Murray v Foyle Meats [1999] IRLR 562 then why did the Court of Appeal find it so hard to apply it in this case?
Peter D
Evans involved the use of an express mobility clause to avoid making the employee redundant. This clause permitted the Home Office to transfer the employee to any civil service post whether in the UK or abroad. This case involved the proposed redeployment of immigration officers from Waterloo to Heathrow when the international station closed.
The question for the Court of Appeal was how redundancy interacts with a mobility clause. The Court took a practical approach and found that where such a clause existed, the activation of the clause to avoid redundancy was permissible. This decision appears to be an unwelcome return to the contract test. After all there was no longer a requirement for immigration officers at Waterloo as the terminal had closed.
Added to this is the Court of Appeals apparent failure to take account of High Table Ltd v Horst [1997] IRLR 513 a case where the employer was not permitted to use a mobility clause to avoid paying a redundancy payment to an employee who had always worked at the site which was being closed.
As Lord Justice Peter Gibson remarked at paragraph 22:
“It would be unfortunate if the law were to encourage the inclusion of mobility clauses in contracts of employment to defeat genuine redundancy claims.”
Evans may best be explained on its particular facts nevertheless this case does raise the obvious question. If the definition of redundancy is so simple as explained by Lord Irvine in Murray v Foyle Meats [1999] IRLR 562 then why did the Court of Appeal find it so hard to apply it in this case?
Peter D
No comments:
Post a Comment