| v> | | | | The EAT ruled that: |
| In Dockerty v FM Fabrications, Dockerty claimed that | | | | ▪ The ET had not considered whether a |
| he had been unfairly dismissed by his employers, FM | | | | Polkey reduction should be made; |
| Fabrications. The Employment Tribunal held in favour | | | | ▪ The ET must address a two stage question |
| of Dockerty and ruled that the redundancy process | | | | when calculating compensation for unfair dismissal: |
| by which Dockerty had been chosen for dismissal | | | | 1) Would an offer of employment have resulted had |
| was unfair resulting in an unfair dismissal. The | | | | the proper procedure been followed?; and |
| Employment Tribunal ordered FM Fabrications to pay | | | | 2) If so, what would that employment have been |
| Dockerty £17,997.40 in damages. | | | | and what wages would have been paid? |
| FM Fabrications appealed this decision to the | | | | ▪ The appeal was allowed and remitted to |
| Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") and claimed that | | | | the Employment Tribunal for a new judgment. |
| the Employment Tribunal had erred in law by not | | | | Comment: Please contact us if you have any |
| considering a Polkey reduction. If a decision is held to | | | | questions about assessing compensation for an unfair |
| be procedurally unfair, the Employment Tribunal will | | | | dismissal. |
| ask itself whether this failure would have ultimately | | | | Email: © RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note |
| made a difference in the outcome. If not, then | | | | does not provide a comprehensive or complete |
| compensation will be limited to the period it would | | | | statement of the law relating to the issues discussed |
| have taken for a proper procedure to take place | | | | nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only |
| before a fair dismissal could have occurred. This is | | | | to highlight general issues. |
| commonly known as a Polkey reduction. | | | | |