Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd
| Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd | |
|---|---|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1999] UKHL 30, [1999] ICR 827 |
| Keywords | |
| Redundancy | |
Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [1999] UKHL 30 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy, specifically the interpretation of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Facts
Foyle Meats Ltd's slaughtering business was declining. One production line in the slaughter hall was eliminated and 35 meat plant operatives were made redundant from the slaughter hall. The employees all had flexibility clauses and they sometimes rotated departments to the boning or loading hall, etc. The dismissed employees claimed they were not redundant because the employer still needed workers under the same terms, just in different departments.
Judgment
Lord Irvine LC held that the operatives were redundant and that "the language of the [Employment Rights Act 1996 section 139(1)(b)] is in my view simplicity itself". He referred to Nelson v BBC[1] which had wrongly propagated the "contract test" view, which was wrong. There was a simple causation test to apply, based on the word "attributable" in the statute. Did diminishing demand for labour cause the dismissal?
| “ | The argument before the Employment Appeal Tribunal turned on whether the ‘contract test’ ought to be applied (i.e. did the company need less employees [sic] of the kind specified in Mr Pink’s contract)… | ” |
Notes
- ↑ [1977] ICR 649, Megaw LJ, Roskill LJ and Browne LJ