W Brewin & Co Ltd v. Marvin

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 16 October 2009 Before

The Employment Tribunal had found lack of warning, lack of consultation, unfair application of selection criteria, unfair criteria and lack of consultation as in absentia employment. Some of the findings were redolent of 'substitution' but overall these were findings of fact supporting the conclusion and the appeal was dismissed.

There were, in fact, three quality assurance examiners so that the decision meant two out of the three would have to lose their employment by reason of redundancy unless volunteers could be found. The three examiners were told this on 20 March and volunteers were indeed called for but none were forthcoming so selection for compulsory redundancy was necessary.

That assertion appears to have been discussed during the course of the appeal hearing which took place on 30 April although the scope of the discussion may have been somewhat limited, judging by the note which appears at page�47 of the bundle under the heading "Item 1 and 4". It was submitted that the reduction from three examiners to one examiner had not been warranted because Mr�Taylor was still employed and this illustrated that two examiners had been needed all along.

The other statement referred to at paragraph�30 is that of Mr�Brewin and the passage referred to is at paragraph�14(iv) which appears at page�108. That reads as follows: