Thursday, August 11, 2016

Redundancy Process Lessons from Chagger v Abbey National Santander share

Deciding on an employee for redundancy using an unfair and/or discriminatory redundancy process can go away the employer uncovered to indefensible accusations of unfairness and discrimination, as demonstrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case within the UK, the place the Employment Tribunal made a ruling of race discrimination and subsequently ordered Abbey Nationwide Santander share to pay the record-breaking compensation award of £2.eight million. Santander Abbey Nationwide Group (the Spanish-owned UK excessive street financial institution being re-branded as Santander share value, and being part of the big Banco Santander Group) terminated Balbinder Chagger's employment in 2006, asserting redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger, however, believed that the true purpose for his dismissal was race discrimination. Abbey Santander worth employed Mr Chagger, who was of Indian origin, as a Trading Danger Controller. He earned round £a hundred,000 a 12 months and reported into Nigel Hopkins. The redundancy pool of selection was Mr Chagger and the opposite Buying and selling Risk Controller, a female of European origin.

Below the Employment Rights Act 1996, the selection of any employee for dismissal via redundancy should be truthful; meaning that the redundancy choice criteria must be each truthful and measurable, and have to be applied fairly to every worker in the redundancy pool of selection. The Employment Tribunal within the Santander Abbey Santander case found that the redundancy choice standards utilized by Abbey Nationwide Santander have been highly subjective and un-measureable. The Employment Tribunal extremely criticised Mr Hopkins for the discriminatory method through which he had applied the redundancy choice criteria to Mr Chagger; he was personally content for Mr Chagger's employment to be ended, had pre-deliberate that Mr Chagger could be the employee that will be scored decrease within the redundancy scoring exercise and, so, chosen to be dismissed, and had used the redundancy process as a automobile to remove Mr Chagger from his position. Mr Hopkins had picked upon Mr Chagger unfairly.

With a purpose to safeguard the equity of the redundancy process and to minimise the danger of allegations of unfairness and discrimination, it would seem like good observe to ensure that multiple individual is concerned within the scoring of employees throughout a redundancy scoring exercise. The Employment Tribunal discovered that Santander Abbey Nationwide didn't exercise this explicit good observe. Amongst different issues, Mr Hopkins alone was able to volunteer to Santander Abbey's administration to lose one of the two Buying and selling Danger Controllers that he managed (of which Mr Chagger was one), Mr Hopkins alone was able to approach Mr Chagger with a proposal to take up voluntary redundancy, which Mr Chagger refused (Mr Hopkins did not strategy the opposite Trading Threat Controller with any such provide), Mr Hopkins was able to carry out the obligatory redundancy scoring exercise fully alone (Mr Chagger was the one worker whose redundancy scores he had marked down).

Organisations that do not train equity in deciding on staff to be dismissed in a redundancy situation can discover themselves exposed to claims of unfair dismissal and/or discrimination; an unfair and discriminatory redundancy process contributed to the Employment Tribunal's ruling that each Abbey Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

The Chagger v Santander Abbey case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage. In 2008, Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) towards the original Employment Tribunal's ruling of race discrimination and towards the order of £2.8 million award. The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal's ruling that both Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated towards Mr Chagger in respect of his dismissal. However, the EAT did accept Abbey Santander's appeal on the £2.8 million compensatio

No comments:

Post a Comment