Walsall Council's Redundancy Appeal Upheld by EAT
Walsall Council wins appeal in EAT over redundancy handling of employee on maternity leave. The EAT ruled the tribunal wrongly considered a claim not initially part of the case, raising questions on time limits and claim amendments.
• public
Council's Redundancy Procedures Scrutinised in EAT Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a previous tribunal ruling against Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council, concerning the redundancy of a care manager, Christine Oliver, while she was on maternity leave.
Tribunal Error in Claim Handling
The EAT found the original tribunal had wrongly considered Ms Oliver's claim of automatic unfair dismissal under Section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, linked to Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999. This regulation requires employers to offer suitable alternative roles to employees on maternity leave facing redundancy. The EAT determined this particular claim was not part of Ms Oliver's original case and had not been correctly added through amendment procedures, therefore not within their jurisdiction.
Time Limits and Amendment Procedures in Focus
A key aspect of the EAT's decision was the original tribunal's failure to address time limit issues related to the automatic unfair dismissal claim. According to the EAT, if Ms Oliver intended to pursue this specific claim, an application to amend her original case should have been made, necessitating consideration of time limits under Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The EAT also highlighted the need for such amendments to follow due process, ensuring clarity for both parties involved.
Suitable Alternative Vacancy Dispute
The EAT also criticised the original tribunal's handling of whether a suitable alternative role existed. The tribunal had not sufficiently investigated whether either an assistant manager role or a residential childcare worker role met the necessary criteria of suitability and appropriateness for Ms Oliver, under regulation 10(3). Specifically, whether the assistant manager role was too senior, or the childcare worker role was on substantially less favourable terms than her previous role had not been thoroughly investigated.
Re-evaluation of Redundancy Case
Following the appeal, the EAT has requested further submissions from both parties to determine the next steps in the case, given their findings. This case underlines the importance of correct procedure in employment tribunals, particularly concerning claims involving maternity rights and redundancy.
