Employment Law: Unfair Dismissal - Employer Succeeded in Changing Terms of Employment

Good News for Employers wishing to change theThe employer did not need to prove that those
terms of employment of employees, however,advantages objectively exist.
employers must still take care.In Scott & Co vThis is good news for employers who can rely
Richardson [2005], the Dependant, Mr Richardson,on the principle that the tribunal must respect
who worked for a Scottish firm of debttheir commercial decisions in assessing whether a
collectors, refused to accept his new terms offair reason for dismissal has been shown.
employment which required him to visit defaultingHowever this must be tempered by another EAT
debtors during the evenings. Mr Richardson agreeddecision in Forshaw and others v Archcraft
to work evenings but only if this would continueLimited [2005], where the EAT relied on its own
to attract overtime payments as had previouslyassessment that the clause in question was
been the case. Scott & Co tried for sevenunreasonable and found that the dismissal was
months to persuade Mr Richardson to change hisunfair. In Forshaw the EAT said that while the
mind but he refused, finally issuing an ultimatumtribunal generally will not re-open the commercial
that his employer should either accept his positiondecisions of an employer's management,
or dismiss him. They chose to dismiss him.At firsthowever, a reason which is genuinely held but is
instance, Scott & Co claimed that the change intrivial or unworthy or whimsical will mean that the
working conditions was required to bring thedismissal is unfair.Comment: Provided that care is
company into line with new market practices andtaken, changes to employment terms which are
to allow them to plan work more cheaply andsupported by sound commercial reasons will be
effectively. Mr Richardson argued that Scott & Coacceptable under the law.
had failed to prove that there were advantagesIf you require further information contact
to the new working arrangements and that theus.Email: © RT COOPERS, 2005. This Briefing
real reason for the changes was to save moneyNote does not provide a comprehensive or
in overtime payments.Mr Richardson succeeded incomplete statement of the law relating to the
his claim for unfair dismissal and the Employmentissues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice.
Tribunal held that it did not appear that theIt is intended only to highlight general issues.
imposition of the shift system was of suchSpecialist legal advice should always be sought in
discernible advantage that the only reasonablerelation to particular circumstances.Employment
thing to do was to terminate the employee'ssolicitors, employment law, employment lawyers,
contract unless he would agree to the newemployment law firm, redundancies, unfair
arrangement.On appeal the EAT overturned thisdismissals, breach of contract, workplace disputes,
decision and held that:-A Tribunal should notTUPE Transfers, drafting employment contracts,
'second guess' an employer's business decision;grievance procedures, disciplinary procedures,
A Tribunal should evaluate whether dismissal wasmaternity rights,discrimination, employment
due to the employer's reasonable belief that theDisputes, suspensions, wrongful dismissal,equal
contract changes had advantages; andpay, media copyright.