Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce

Last updated
Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce
Court Employment Appeal Tribunal
Citation(s) [1985] IRLR 179
Keywords
Redundancy

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

Contents

Facts

Mr Pearce was offered a new contract with the company that had bought his employer’s business. Pay was lower, hours were more, holidays were reduced and the occupational pension and fringe benefits were gone. He rejected the offer and claimed unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal upheld Mr Pearce’s unfair dismissal claim, and Richmond Precision Engineering appealed.

Judgment

Beldam J in the EAT overturned the Tribunal. The test was whether a reasonable employer could have offered the same terms in the circumstances, including ones disadvantageous or advantageous to both parties. The employee being worse off was not a sufficient reason.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    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.

    <i>Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner</i> United Kingdom employment law court case

    Nethermere Ltd v Gardiner And Another [1984] ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee.

    <i>OKelly v Trusthouse Forte plc</i> United Kingdom court case about employment law

    O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] ICR 728 was a UK labour law case, in which a bare majority held that a requirement for a contract is "mutuality of obligation" between the parties, which was thought to mean an ongoing duty to offer and accept work. It has been consistently doubted, and its outcome reversed by legislation, and its reasoning superseded by Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, which states that the only "mutual" obligations that are required is the consideration of work for a quid pro quo.

    Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd (5.7.2000) Appeal No: EAT/1243/99, is a UK labour law case, concerning the TUPE Regulations.

    Johnson v Unisys Limited [2001] UKHL 13 is a leading UK labour law case on the measure of damages for unfair dismissal and the nature of the contract of employment.

    Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham [1992] ICR 183 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    <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.

    Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    <i>Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd</i>

    Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.

    Lesney Products & Co v Nolan [1976] EWCA Civ 8 is a UK labour law case concerning redundancy.

    <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>Rutherford v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry</i>

    Rutherford v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2006] UKHL 19 is a UK labour law case concerning sex and age discrimination. It also contains the test for indirect discrimination, based on statistical comparisons.

    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.

    <i>Port of London Authority v Payne</i>

    Port of London Authority v Payne [1993] EWCA Civ 26 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal and the remedy of reinstatement.

    <i>Safeway Stores plc v Burrell</i>

    Safeway Stores plc v Burrell [1997] ICR 523 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy.

    <i>Smith v Glasgow City District Council</i>

    Smith v Glasgow City District Council [1987] ICR 796 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal on the requirement for an employer to state a main reason for a dismissal.

    <i>Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson</i>

    Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal.

    References