Services
People
News and Events
Other
Blogs

Redundancy - place of employment

View profile for Kate Fretten
  • Posted
  • Author

EXOL Lubricants v Birch

In this case the EAT decided that there was no redundancy situation when employees lost the benefit of free parking near their homes.

The Claimants were employed as delivery HGV drivers. They lived in Manchester but the depot they had to attend to load up was situated in Wednesbury. Their employment contracts also stipulated that their place of employment was Wednesbury. Due to the cost of commuting, EXOL agreed to make available secure parking for the employees in Stockport, near their homes. They would then drive from their homes to Wednesbury and the journey to and from Stockport was treated as part of their working day, for which they were paid.

The company could no longer afford to pay for the secure parking in Stockport and so they gave notice to terminate this arrangement. They sought to argue that there was a fair reason for dismissal, namely redundancy, on the basis that Stockport was the Claimants’ place of work rather than Wednesbury. The employment tribunal rejected this proposition. The employees’ place of work was not Stockport, but Wednesbury, because that was where their working day began and ended.

The EAT agreed with the tribunal, stating the proper test in determining where an employee is employed for the purposes of redundancy is as follows. First, it is proper (but by no means conclusive) to have regard to a contractual provision. Secondly, it is appropriate to consider, depending on the facts of the case, any connection the employee may have with a depot or head office. Here, the employees’ contractual place of work was at Wednesbury and, secondly, they had a close connection with the Wednesbury depot. There was therefore no redundancy situation at Wednesbury because the job and the need for people to do it remained. As the employer advanced no other potentially fair reason for dismissal, the dismissals were unfair.

In Practice

Employment Partner, Kate Fretten says, “This decision is sensible and certainly correct. The employer may have been able to succeed with a ‘some other substantial reason’ argument concerning the ending of the parking arrangement and the termination of the employees’ employment. However, they did not argue this and understandably lost on the redundancy argument.”

We have offices in the Christchurch, New Milton and the New Forest. Our Employment team also cover Bournemouth and Poole. For a free initial chat, please call 01202 499255 and Kate or a member of the team will be happy to discuss any questions that you may have.

Comments