Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd

Redundancy under section 11(2)(b) of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 depends on two factual questions. The tribunal must decide whether the business’s requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have diminished and whether the dismissal was wholly or mainly attributable to that diminution.

The employee’s contractual duties do not determine the relevant kind of work. Nor does the function actually performed provide a separate legal test. Contractual terms may help identify the work or place of employment, but the statutory language and the requirements of the business govern. Whether a sufficient causal connection exists is a question of fact.

The respondent operated a meat-processing business. A decline in business led it to reduce the slaughter hall from two killing lines to one. After consultation with the union, it selected the appellants, who normally worked in that hall, for redundancy.

The appellants complained of unfair dismissal. Their contracts permitted deployment elsewhere, and they argued that the redundancy pool should therefore have included everyone employed on similar terms. The Industrial Tribunal found that the business required fewer slaughter-hall employees and that this diminution led to the dismissals. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

The central issue before the House was whether redundancy depended on diminished demand for the work specified by the employees’ contracts, or on the factual questions posed by section 11(2)(b) of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.

1. The appeals were dismissed unanimously. Lord Irvine of Lairg L.C. delivered the leading speech. Lord Slynn agreed with him; Lord Jauncey and Lord Hoffmann agreed with both Lord Irvine and Lord Clyde; and Lord Clyde delivered a concurring speech.

2. Per Lord Irvine, section 11(2)(b) of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 poses two questions of fact. First, have the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind ceased or diminished? Secondly, was the dismissal wholly or mainly attributable to that state of affairs? The second question concerns causation. The Tribunal found both a reduced need for slaughter-hall employees and the required causal connection to the appellants’ dismissals. That disposed of the statutory issue.

3. The analysis in Safeway Stores Plc v Burrell [1997] IRLR 200 was approved. The contrary contractual approach derived from Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation [1977] IRLR 148 was wrong. An employee may be redundant because demand for a particular kind of work has diminished even though the contract permits the employer to assign other work.

4. Per Lord Irvine, neither the “contract test” nor the “function test” states the law. The key statutory word is “attributable”. A dismissal may be attributable to reduced workforce requirements irrespective of the contractual duties or the function performed. The dismissal of an employee who could readily have been redeployed, or whose existing work was unaffected, may require explanation. Whether the necessary causal connection exists nevertheless remains a question of fact for the tribunal.

5. Per Lord Clyde, statutory language must remain the primary focus. Section 11(2)(b) directs attention to the requirements of the business, not to “employees of a particular kind” or work specified in their contracts. Contractual provisions are not conclusive, although they may provide evidence about the kinds of work undertaken or the place of employment. Artificially labelled tests risk replacing the statutory language.

6. The Tribunal had therefore made no error of law. It was entitled to find that the business needed fewer employees in the slaughter hall and that this diminution led to the appellants’ dismissal.

1. House of Lords: The employees’ appeals were dismissed unanimously: [2000] 1 AC 51.

2. Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland: On appeal by case stated, the court upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s conclusion that the employees had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. No citation is stated in the judgment.

3. Industrial Tribunal: The tribunal rejected the employees’ unfair-dismissal complaints. It found that the business required fewer employees in the slaughter hall and that this led to their dismissal.