Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Fisher v Hoopoe Finance Limited
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (13 April 2005)

Issues

(1)Unfair Dismissal
(2)Redundancy
(3)Suitable Alternative Employment

Facts

Mr Fisher had been employed by the Company as a New Business Manager from February 2001 until he was dismissed on 30th April 2004. The business operated from premises in West Sussex and dealt in the provision of hire purchase facilities to consumers and business for the purchase of vehicles, plant and machinery.

A redundancy situation arose when the Respondent ceased trading. Mr Fisher and his colleagues therefore faced redundancy. Mr Fisher was made aware of a vacancy of Sales Account Manager within a connected organisation but no further details were provided because he had expressed no interest in the role.

A few weeks after his dismissal for redundancy, the role of Sales Account Manager was advertised and the financial package was comparable to Mr Fisher’s previous position. He brought unfair dismissal proceedings. He argued that the Company’s failure to provide him with any financial information about the new role meant that he was denied the opportunity to give the role any realistic consideration.

Decision

At first instance, the Tribunal dismissed his claim. As Mr Fisher had expressed no interest in the new position, then the Company had discharged its obligation to investigate and bring to his attention suitable or alternative employment.

Mr Fisher appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT found that the provision of details such as the financial prospects of a particular role should be the norm unless it was not practicable; eg if the financial aspects had not been determined at that point.

The EAT went on however to comment upon Mr Fisher’s own conduct and his lack of interest in the new role. It stated that failure by an employee to express an interest in a position (or to request further information about it) is a fact that that the Tribunal may wish to take into account in reducing the award on grounds of contributory fault.

Comments

This case emphasises the general requirement upon employers to give potentially at risk employees as much information as possible about alternative roles. It does go on to place a additional responsibility upon the employee to ask for information and express interest in other positions as failure to do so may result in a reduced award from the Tribunal.