St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v Williamson

An employment tribunal’s reasons are sufficient where they show that the tribunal identified and answered the correct questions, even if individual matters are not discussed under the precise terminology used by the parties. An appellate tribunal should not interfere with findings of fact unless there is an error of law or the conclusion is perverse or inadequately reasoned. In a redundancy case, vacancies arising after termination will ordinarily be irrelevant to the fairness of the dismissal unless they bear directly on the employer’s conduct before termination. Redundancy under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is ultimately a question of fact assessed by reference to the circumstances existing when the dismissal decision must be made.

The Trust dismissed Mrs Williamson by reason of redundancy when a temporary position in an intensive care unit ended on 31 March 1998. The Employment Tribunal rejected her complaints of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal accepted that the tribunal’s reasons were legally inadequate on redundancy selection and remitted the unfair-dismissal issue for rehearing.

The Trust appealed to the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the Employment Tribunal had adequately addressed the Trust’s redeployment policy, whether it had sufficiently explained why a post becoming available on the termination date was not offered, whether vacancies advertised after termination were relevant, and whether redundancy had been established under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had identified no error of law justifying interference with the Employment Tribunal’s decision. The Employment Tribunal’s extended reasons showed that it had considered consultation, selection, alternative employment and the appeals process, which were the material matters addressed by the Trust’s redeployment policy.

2. The finding that it was not unreasonable not to offer Mrs Williamson the Deputy Service Manager post was a supported finding of fact, not a perverse conclusion. The post had been ring-fenced for another employee, who declined it only on 31 March 1998. That date was also the end of the Trust’s financial year, by which time the redundancy had to be settled to avoid serious financial consequences.

3. The reasoning principles in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] 16 IRLR 250 did not require remission. The present tribunal had set out the factual and legal basis for its decision. Applying the approach in Anya v University of Oxford [2001] IRLR 377, it had covered the correct ground and answered the right questions.

4. Vacancies advertised after termination were irrelevant to the fairness of the dismissal because they did not directly concern the Trust’s conduct in terminating employment. The employer was no longer obliged to offer alternative employment after termination, although Mrs Williamson could have applied for the advertised posts. The distinction recognised in West Midlands Cooperative Society v Tipton [1986] ICR 192 concerned matters emerging during an internal appeal which related to the circumstances of dismissal.

5. The possibility of future vacancies did not prevent redundancy being established. The relevant question under section 139 was determined by the disappearance of the work actually performed and the circumstances confronting the Trust by 31 March 1998. Redundancy is ultimately a question of fact, as emphasised in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [2000] 1 AC 51. The Employment Tribunal’s decision was restored, with costs to be assessed by the Costs Judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2001] EWCA Civ 1627 — appeal allowed, the Employment Tribunal’s decision restored, with costs to be assessed by the Costs Judge.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: remitted the unfair-dismissal claim to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal solely on whether Mrs Williamson had been unfairly selected for dismissal by reason of redundancy.
• Employment Tribunal: rejected the claims of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination.