High Table Ltd v Horst

For redundancy purposes, the place where an employee is employed is determined primarily from the factual circumstances before dismissal. Contractual terms may evidence or define the extent of that place where the employment is genuinely mobile. A mobility clause does not, by itself, extend it to every location to which the employer could transfer the employee.

In assessing fairness, the tribunal considers the employer’s decision when dismissal takes effect. Steps taken during notice may therefore be relevant. Reasons need address the principal issues actually in dispute and must enable the parties and an appellate tribunal to understand the decision. They need not answer every point raised with hindsight.

The employer supplied catering services to client firms. Reduced catering requirements at Hill Samuel led to the removal of the respondents’ part-time waitress roles. The employer gave redundancy notices, advertised vacancies and offered the respondents an opportunity to apply for alternative work.

The Industrial Tribunal held that the dismissals were by reason of redundancy and were fair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employees’ appeals and remitted the claims, holding that the redundancy issue and the adequacy of the tribunal’s reasons required reconsideration.

The employer appealed. The central issues were whether the statutory place of employment was fixed by the employees’ mobility clauses and whether the Industrial Tribunal’s reasons adequately dealt with fairness.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Peter Gibson LJ held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should not have remitted the claims. Hobhouse and Evans LJJ agreed fully. The Industrial Tribunal’s orders were restored.

2. Under section 81(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, the place where an employee was employed is a question answered primarily by the factual circumstances existing before dismissal. A contractual term may help to identify the extent of that place where the employee’s work has in fact involved changing locations. However, a mobility clause cannot alone enlarge the place of employment to every place at which the employer could theoretically require work.

3. Each employee had worked at Hill Samuel for more than four years. Hill Samuel was therefore the relevant place of employment. Its reduced requirements created a redundancy situation there. No further factual inquiry was needed.

4. The court applied the fairness inquiry in section 57(3). Fairness is judged when the dismissal takes effect. Although earlier consultation and redeployment efforts would have been preferable, the month of notice and the tribunal’s unchallenged finding that consultation would not have changed the outcome were relevant. The evidence entitled the tribunal to find reasonable redeployment efforts and selection.

5. The duty to give reasons under paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 requires intelligible and adequate reasons. It requires a tribunal to address the principal controversial points on the issues actually before it, rather than every point later identified. The Industrial Tribunal had done so on the real issue of fairness.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Allowed the employer’s appeal, set aside the remittal ordered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and restored the Industrial Tribunal’s decisions.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal On 23 April 1996, allowed the employees’ appeals and remitted the claims to an Industrial Tribunal for rehearing.
• Industrial Tribunal, London (South) Held that the employees had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the employer had acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal.