|Lesney Products & Co v Nolan|
|Court||Court of Appeal|
|Citation(s)|| EWCA Civ 8,  ICR 235|
Lesney Products & Co v Nolan  EWCA Civ 8 is a UK labour law case concerning redundancy.
Lesney Products & Co removed its night shift and divided its day shift into two. The company still produced the same amount of products (even though demand had fallen) but it was no longer giving overtime to its workers. Employees who saw their wages drop by a third refused to work on the new day shift. They were dismissed and they claimed redundancy.
The Tribunal upheld the employees' claim.
Lord Denning MR said that the employees were not redundant, because the employer had a legitimate business reason for wishing to vary the contracts, and the employees' non-acceptance effectively amounted to a voluntary resignation.
|“|| This is a very difficult case. It arises under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. The employers produce little model toys for children. They have factories in several places. This case concerns the factory in Lee Conservancy Road, Hackney… |
The dismissal must be attributable to for employees " the fact that the requirements of that business/to carry out work of a particular kind ... have ceased or diminished", etc. In applying that principle, it is important that nothing should be done to impair the ability of employers to reorganise their work force and their times and conditions of work so as to improve efficiency. They may reorganise it so as to reduce overtime and thus to save themselves money, but that does not give the man a right to redundancy payment. Overtime might be reduced, for instance, by taking on more men: but that would not give the existing staff a right to redundancy payments. Also when overtime is reduced by a reorganisation of working hours, that does not give rise to a right to redundancy payment, so long as the work to be done is the same.
It seems to me that the problem in this case is whether this re-organisation - whereby the one long day shift plus overtime was altered into two day shifts for the machine setters - was done in the interests of efficiency or whether it was due to a drop in the amount of work required for the men employed in the factory. The employers gave evidence (which was not contradicted) that the amount of work coming into the factory and being done on the day shifts by all the direct operatives was just the same as before. There was no reduction in it. The night shift was done away with for want of work -and on that accord the night shift people would get redundancy payments. But the day shifts turned out the same amount of work by the same number of women operatives. So far as the machine setters were concerned, they did the same work for the day shifts as they did before. They saw that the machines were properly set and maintained, and turned out the toys as before. In these cases the re-organisation was not done because of less work but it was done in the interests of efficiency and to save the employers having to pay so much overtime.
It is shown by the evidence that the employers did not reduce the number of machine setters. They still wanted the whole of the 36. When some of them refused to come back, the employers needed others to replace the men. They put advertisements in the papers for them. So they wanted the same number of men.
No doubt the men at work would not get as much overtime as they had done under the previous system. But the company had a scheme for alleviating the position. The men got compensation in that they received the basic wage plus 171/2 per cent shift premium. It seems that on average a person who previously received £70 a week might now only be getting £54. So there was to that extent a saving in the money which the company spent on overtime.
The decisions of the tribunals were very carefully considered; but they do seem to have been led into error by asking whether there was "a redundancy situation" instead of looking at the words of the statute and asking whether the amount of work had ceased or diminished.
Stephenson LJ and Shaw LJ concurred.
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.
Termination of employment is an employee's departure from a job and the end of an employee's duration with an employer. Termination may be voluntary on the employee's part, or it may be at the hands of the employer, often in the form of dismissal (firing) or a layoff. Dismissal or firing is typically thought to be the fault of the employee, whereas a layoff is usually done for business reasons outside the employee's performance.
A severance package is pay and benefits employees receive when they leave employment at a company unwillfully. In addition to their remaining regular pay, it may include some of the following:
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.
Cairns v Visteon UK Ltd  ICR 616 is a UK labour law case, regarding the scope of protection available to agency workers.
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Annabel’s Ltd  EWCA Civ 361 is a UK labour law case regarding the treatment of tips under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It led to the abolition of the exception of tips from the national minimum wage.
In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.
McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment EWCA Civ 1166 is a UK labour law case concerning the scope of protection for people to employment rights. It took the view that an agency worker did have an employment contract for the purpose of claiming for unpaid wages on an employer's insolvency.
St Helen’s Borough Council v Derbyshire  UKHL 16 is a UK labour law case concerning victimisation, which now falls under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
Hollister v National Farmers’ Union  ICR 542 is a UK labour law case concerning redundancy and unfair dismissal.
Muschett v H M Prison Service  EWCA Civ 25 is a UK labour law case, which held that an agency worker had no right to claim discrimination from either the agency or the place of work.
Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd EWCA Civ 1507 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that promises to make no compulsory redundancies in a collective agreement were "aspirational" and not apt for being incorporated into individual contracts of employment. This meant that, aside from the collective agreement being unenforceable under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 179, the promises to employees could be broken.
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Communication Workers Union  EWCA Civ 1045 is a UK labour law case concerning transfers of undertakings, and the job security rights of employees.
The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 was a UK Act of Parliament that introduced into UK labour law the principle that after a qualifying period of work, people would have a right to a severance payment in the event of their jobs becoming economically unnecessary to the employer. The functions of the redundancy payment were to internalise the social cost of unemployment to the employer, make employers think more carefully before making people redundant, to compensate the employee for the loss of a job, and to provide a minimum sum of money for the employee in case future employment could not immediately be found. Together with the requirement of statutory minimum notice in the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, and the right to a fair dismissal first found from the Industrial Relations Act 1971, redundancy pay forms one of the three pillars of rights in dismissal.
Nelson v BBC  ICR 110 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal and the role of contributory fault.
Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd  UKHL 30 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy, specifically the interpretation of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
High Table Ltd v Horst  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.
British Aerospace plc v Green  ICR 1006 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.
Rolls Royce plc v Unite the Union  EWCA Civ 387 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.
Governing Body of Clifton Middle School v Askew EWCA 1892 is a UK labour law case, concerning the scope of protection for employees.