Employment Law: Unfair Dismissal - Employer Succeeded in Changing Terms of Employment

Good News for Employers wishing to change theA Tribunal should not 'second guess' an employer's
terms of employment of employees, however,business decision;
employers must still take care.A Tribunal should evaluate whether dismissal was due
In Scott & Co v Richardson [2005], theto the employer's reasonable belief that the contract
Dependant, Mr Richardson, who worked for achanges had advantages; and
Scottish firm of debt collectors, refused to accept hisThe employer did not need to prove that those
new terms of employment which required him to visitadvantages objectively exist.
defaulting debtors during the evenings. Mr RichardsonThis is good news for employers who can rely on
agreed to work evenings but only if this wouldthe principle that the tribunal must respect their
continue to attract overtime payments as hadcommercial decisions in assessing whether a fair
previously been the case. Scott & Co tried forreason for dismissal has been shown. However this
seven months to persuade Mr Richardson to changemust be tempered by another EAT decision in
his mind but he refused, finally issuing an ultimatumForshaw and others v Archcraft Limited [2005],
that his employer should either accept his position orwhere the EAT relied on its own assessment that
dismiss him. They chose to dismiss him.the clause in question was unreasonable and found
At first instance, Scott & Co claimed that thethat the dismissal was unfair. In Forshaw the EAT
change in working conditions was required to bringsaid that while the tribunal generally will not re-open
the company into line with new market practices andthe commercial decisions of an employer's
to allow them to plan work more cheaply andmanagement, however, a reason which is genuinely
effectively. Mr Richardson argued that Scott &held but is trivial or unworthy or whimsical will mean
Co had failed to prove that there were advantagesthat the dismissal is unfair.
to the new working arrangements and that the realComment: Provided that care is taken, changes to
reason for the changes was to save money inemployment terms which are supported by sound
overtime payments.commercial reasons will be acceptable under the law.
Mr Richardson succeeded in his claim for unfairIf you require further information contact us.
dismissal and the Employment Tribunal held that it didEmail: © RT COOPERS, 2005. This Briefing Note
not appear that the imposition of the shift systemdoes not provide a comprehensive or complete
was of such discernible advantage that the onlystatement of the law relating to the issues discussed
reasonable thing to do was to terminate thenor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only
employee's contract unless he would agree to theto highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should
new arrangement.always be sought in relation to particular
On appeal the EAT overturned this decision and heldcircumstances.
that:-