The Court of Appeal's decision in the case of ADP RPO UK Ltd v Haycocks marks a significant development in the interpretation of redundancy consultation requirements under UK employment law. This case specifically addresses the obligations of employers in small-scale redundancy situations, where fewer than 20 employees are involved at a single establishment within a 90-day period. The ruling overturns the Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) earlier decision, which had controversially suggested that even in such small-scale redundancies, a "general workforce consultation" was necessary to ensure fairness. The Court of Appeal's judgment provides clarity on the extent of consultation required, emphasising that individual consultation can suffice, depending on the circumstances of each case.
Background and context
The claimant, Mr. De Bank Haycocks, was employed by ADP RPO UK Ltd, a recruitment process outsourcing company. Following a downturn in demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic, ADP decided to reduce its workforce. A selection matrix was used to score employees, and Mr. Haycocks, having received the lowest score, was selected for redundancy. The process involved individual consultation meetings, but Mr. Haycocks was not informed of his scores until the appeal stage. He subsequently claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that the lack of early and meaningful consultation rendered the process unfair.
The EAT's decision
The EAT initially upheld Mr. Haycocks' claim, finding that the redundancy process was procedurally unfair due to the absence of "general workforce consultation" at a formative stage. The EAT posited that such consultation was a requirement of good industrial relations practice, even in small-scale redundancies. This decision was based on the premise that consultation should occur when proposals are still at a formative stage, allowing employees to influence the outcome. The EAT's ruling implied that employers should engage in broader consultation with the workforce, beyond individual meetings, to ensure fairness.
The Court of Appeal's Ruling
The Court of Appeal overturned the EAT's decision, clarifying that "general workforce consultation" is not a prerequisite for fair dismissal in small-scale redundancies. The Court emphasized that the statutory obligations for collective consultation apply only when 20 or more employees are involved. In cases involving fewer employees, individual consultation is sufficient, provided it is meaningful and occurs at a stage where employees can realistically influence the decision. The Court noted that while group meetings might be useful, they are not mandatory, and the adequacy of consultation should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Key points from the Court of Appeal
Individual consultation suffices: The Court of Appeal confirmed that individual consultation can address both individual and common issues affecting the workforce. Employers should not assume that employees have nothing to contribute on common issues, but the absence of group consultation does not automatically render a dismissal unfair.
Timing of consultation: The Court reiterated that consultation must occur at a formative stage, meaning when the employer's proposals are still open to influence. This does not necessarily mean early in the process, but at a point where the employee can still impact the decision. The Court acknowledged that later consultation increases the risk of a closed decision-making process, but this is a factual determination for tribunals.
Role of appeals: The Court highlighted that a well-conducted appeal process can rectify procedural flaws in the consultation process. If an employee is given the opportunity to challenge the selection criteria and scores during an appeal, this can cure earlier deficiencies in the consultation process.
Implications for employers
The Court of Appeal's decision provides significant relief for employers, particularly in non-unionized workplaces, by confirming that extensive workforce consultation is not required in small-scale redundancies. Employers are encouraged to focus on meaningful individual consultation, ensuring that employees have the opportunity to express their views on both individual and common issues. This approach aligns with established principles of fair redundancy consultation and allows employers to tailor their processes to the specific circumstances of each case.
Practical steps for employers
Conduct individual consultations: Ensure that each affected employee is consulted individually, allowing them to express their views on both personal and common issues related to the redundancy process.
Timing and openness: Schedule consultations at a formative stage, where decisions are not yet finalised, and remain open to employee input that could influence the outcome.
Provide information: Share relevant information with employees, including the business rationale for redundancies, selection criteria, and individual scores, to facilitate meaningful consultation.
Consider appeals: Offer a right of appeal to address any procedural shortcomings in the initial consultation process, ensuring that employees have a fair opportunity to challenge decisions.
Document the process: Keep detailed records of all consultation meetings, including notes and minutes, to demonstrate compliance with fair consultation practices.
The Court of Appeal's ruling in ADP RPO UK Ltd v Haycocks underscores the importance of meaningful individual consultation in small-scale redundancies. By adhering to the principles outlined in this decision, employers can navigate redundancy processes with greater confidence, ensuring fairness and compliance with UK employment law.
This article was generated using Lex HR, an AI tool designed to assist HR professionals with employment law. If you find the content helpful, please explore Lex HR and sign up for a free trial to see how it can benefit your HR practices.
