Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams

Last updated
Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams
Court Employment Appeal Tribunal
Citation(s) [1994] IRLR 384
Keywords
Redundancy

Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams [1994] IRLR 384 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.

Contents

Facts

Catamaran Cruises Ltd did ferries and pleasure cruises on the Thames. French owners bought it following a near insolvency. The TGWU representatives had agreed new contract terms, offered to all employees. Seven claimants refused the new terms and were dismissed.

The Tribunal held the reason for offering the new terms was financial exigency, business efficiency and profitability and that the dismissals were unfair.

Judgment

Tudor Evans J held that a broader balancing test for what was ‘fair’ was appropriate under ERA 1996 s 98(4) and that this dismissal was fair. He quoted with approval Balcombe J in Chubb Fire Security Ltd v Harper [1] and said the following.

Notes

  1. [1983] IRLR 311

Related Research Articles

United Kingdom labour law

United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK benefit from a minimum charter of employment rights, which are found in various Acts, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £7.83 for over 25-year-olds under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempts to limit excessively long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.

In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.

In United Kingdom law, the concept of wrongful dismissal refers exclusively to dismissal contrary to the contract of employment, which effectively means premature termination, either due to insufficient notice or lack of grounds. Although wrongful dismissal is usually associated with lack of notice sometimes it can also be caused by arbitrary dismissal where no notice was required but certain grounds were specified in the contract as being the only ones available but none existed.

Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason. Contrary to the gov.uk website, it is not automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee for a discriminatory reason protected by the Equality Act 2010 ; there is no statutory provision for this and it just amounts to ordinary discrimination.

The Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 known colloquially as TUPE and pronounced tu-pee, are the United Kingdom's implementation of the European Union Transfer of Undertakings Directive. It is an important part of UK labour law, protecting employees whose business is being transferred to another business. The 2006 regulations replace the old 1981 regulations which implemented the original Directive.. The law has been amended in 2014 and various provisions within the 2006 Regulations have altered.

Employment Rights Act 1996 United Kingdom Law

The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.

Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01 is a European Union law case concerning the right of men and women to equal pay for work of equal value under Article 141 of the Treaty of the European Community.

Cairns v Visteon UK Ltd [2007] ICR 616 is a UK labour law case, regarding the scope of protection available to agency workers.

<i>Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp</i>

Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

<i>Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp</i>

Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer.

<i>Hollister v National Farmers Union</i>

Hollister v National Farmers’ Union [1979] ICR 542 is a UK labour law case concerning redundancy and unfair dismissal.

<i>Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board</i>

Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1992] IRLR 469 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that a variation of company workplace customs, which are incorporated into individual contracts of employment can take place after a proper consultation without breaching employees' contracts.

Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd is a UK labour law case concerning transfers of undertakings, and the job security rights of employees.

System Floors (UK) Ltd v Daniel [1982] ICR 54 is a UK labour law case, concerning the construction of terms in a contract of employment.

SA Post Office Ltd v Mampeule is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Labour Court.

Sindane v Prestige Cleaning Services is an important case in South African law, in the Labour Court, Johannesburg, on August 28, 2009. Basson J presided. David Sindane, bringing an application in terms of section 191(5)(b)(ii) of the Labour Relations Act, appeared for himself; JH de Villiers Botha appeared for the respondent.

<i>Reda v Flag Ltd</i>

Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.

<i>High Table Ltd v Horst</i>

High Table Ltd v Horst [1997] EWCA Civ 2000 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy in English Law in the Court of Appeal, the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce [1985] IRLR 179 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.