Redundancy: Wrexham Golf Club v Ingham


‘Range of reasonable responses’ test can apply to size of redundancy pool

In Wrexham Golf Club v Ingham the EAT has held that an employment tribunal was wrong to decide that a redundancy was unfair because the employer had given no consideration to the possibility of establishing a ‘pool’ of employees from which any redundancies could be made. The employer was a small employer that needed to make costs savings and it was not necessarily outside the ‘range of reasonable responses’ to a potential redundancy situation to give no consideration to whether there should be a ‘pool’. The Board had simply made a unanimous decision as to which post had to go but this was not necessarily unfair.

Point to note –

  • This case is also good news for employers. When considering redundancies, there is no rule that there must be a ‘pool’ of employees to choose from. However, even where it is clear that redundancies must be made, they will be unfair dismissals unless the employer can show that they followed a fair procedure – fair selection; proper consultation and consideration given to alternative employment. Legal advice may be necessary in order to avoid claims.


Other cases on the employment case law update for September 2012:

> Constructive dismissal: Roberts v Whitecross School
> Constructive dismissal: Assamoi v Spirit Pub Co
> Restrictive covenants / directors' duties: Safteynet Security Ltd v Coppage
> TUPE / unfair dismissal: F&G Cleaners v Saddington