0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

redundancy: competitive interview processes

8 June 2020

Unsurprisingly, in Gwynedd Council v Barrett, the Respondent’s appeal was unsuccessful. The Respondent appealed the first instance decision that it unfairly dismissed various claimants following the closure of the school where they worked. The Claimants were unsuccessful in applying for substantially similar positions at a new school that opened at the same site. The Employment Tribunal found the process unfair, considering that there was no consultation over the proposals by the appeal, no appeal against dismissal and the manner in which they were required to “apply for their own jobs”.

The Respondent’s appeal was dismissed by the EAT. The EAT held that whether or not the Respondent acted fairly in applying that process in the circumstances of this case was to be judged by an application of s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that is what the Tribunal did. In doing so, it did not err in its understanding of the relationship between the Respondent and the Governing Bodies of the schools as set out in the relevant regulations.

In its reasoning, the EAT contrasted a “forward looking” selection process where alternative employment is considered, typically by competitive interview, for a newly created post and a process of consultation and selection. In this case, the Claimants were not asked to be interviewed for newly created posts, but rather for substantially similar positions. The exercise was not so much 'forward looking' but closer to a selection process from within a pool, with the Claimants applying for their own job back with no consultation or appeal.

related opinions

Home Office Central Registry for modern slavery statement goes live - first universities publish statements

The Home Office recently launched a central registry for modern slavery statements. A growing number of educational organisations, including a number of universities, have published statements on the registry.

View blog

Equal pay at ASDA stores - appeal to the Supreme Court unsuccessful

35,000 workers working in ASDA’s retail business sought to compare themselves to workers at distribution depots for equal pay purposes. Find out more about this Employment Appeal Tribunal.

View blog

Supreme Court confirms that sleep ins are not working time

The Supreme Court judgment represents the conclusion on whether or not “sleep in time” should be classified as working time, when calculating the National Minimum Wage (NMW).

View blog

Mencap case: No entitlement to National Minimum Wage for sleep-in shifts

In a pivotal and much anticipated judgment for the social care sector, the Supreme Court has ruled that workers are not entitled to the National Minimum Wage for all time spent on a sleep-in shift.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up