Employment Law: Unfair Dismissal - Employer Succeeded in Changing Terms of Employment

Good News for Employers wishing to change theThe employer did not need to prove that those
terms of employment of employees, however,advantages objectively exist.
employers must still take care.In Scott & Co vThis is good news for employers who can rely on the
Richardson [2005], the Dependant, Mr Richardson, whoprinciple that the tribunal must respect their commercial
worked for a Scottish firm of debt collectors, refuseddecisions in assessing whether a fair reason for
to accept his new terms of employment whichdismissal has been shown. However this must be
required him to visit defaulting debtors during thetempered by another EAT decision in Forshaw and
evenings. Mr Richardson agreed to work evenings butothers v Archcraft Limited [2005], where the EAT
only if this would continue to attract overtimerelied on its own assessment that the clause in
payments as had previously been the case. Scott &question was unreasonable and found that the
Co tried for seven months to persuade Mr Richardsondismissal was unfair. In Forshaw the EAT said that
to change his mind but he refused, finally issuing anwhile the tribunal generally will not re-open the
ultimatum that his employer should either accept hiscommercial decisions of an employer's management,
position or dismiss him. They chose to dismiss him.Athowever, a reason which is genuinely held but is trivial
first instance, Scott & Co claimed that the change inor unworthy or whimsical will mean that the dismissal is
working conditions was required to bring the companyunfair.Comment: Provided that care is taken, changes
into line with new market practices and to allow themto employment terms which are supported by sound
to plan work more cheaply and effectively. Mrcommercial reasons will be acceptable under the law.
Richardson argued that Scott & Co had failed toIf you require further information contact us.Email:
prove that there were advantages to the new© RT COOPERS, 2005. This Briefing Note does
working arrangements and that the real reason for thenot provide a comprehensive or complete statement
changes was to save money in overtime payments.Mrof the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it
Richardson succeeded in his claim for unfair dismissalconstitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight
and the Employment Tribunal held that it did not appeargeneral issues. Specialist legal advice should always be
that the imposition of the shift system was of suchsought in relation to particular
discernible advantage that the only reasonable thing tocircumstances.Employment solicitors, employment law,
do was to terminate the employee's contract unlessemployment lawyers, employment law firm,
he would agree to the new arrangement.On appealredundancies, unfair dismissals, breach of contract,
the EAT overturned this decision and held that:-Aworkplace disputes, TUPE Transfers, drafting
Tribunal should not 'second guess' an employer'semployment contracts, grievance procedures,
business decision;disciplinary procedures, maternity rights,discrimination,
A Tribunal should evaluate whether dismissal was dueemployment Disputes, suspensions, wrongful
to the employer's reasonable belief that the contractdismissal,equal pay, media copyright.
changes had advantages; and