Can enhanced redundancy entitlements be implied?On 21 Mar 2000 in Personnel Today This week’s case round upPellowe v Pendragon, IRLB 634, EAT• Following a Tupe transfer, Pellowe’s employment transferred from Lex toPendragon which subsequently made her redundant. She received her statutoryredundancy entitlement but brought a breach of contract claim on the basis thatunder her contract with Lex she was entitled to an enhanced payment. She argued that for 20 years Lex had a policy of making enhanced paymentscalculated in accordance with a multiplier set out in the management manual. Moreover, the employee handbook contained a statement that compensationwould be paid to redundant employees. The tribunal dismissed Pellowe’s claim because there was no expresscontractual term giving rise to an enhanced payment and no term could beimplied by custom or practice. Pellowe’s appeal to the EAT was unsuccessful. The manual was an instructionmanual for managers; it had not been formally circulated to employees and didnot impose a contractual obligation to make enhanced redundancy payments. Causation and disability discriminationMurphy v Sheffield Hallam University, IRLB 635, EATMurphy, who was deaf, applied for a position at the university and referredto his disability on the application form. His first interview was adjournedbecause the university failed to arrange for a sign interpreter to attend. Following the resumed interview Murphy was not offered the job and hebrought a disability claim. Although the tribunal held that he had beendiscriminated against at the first interview, due to the university’s failureto arrange for a sign interpreter to attend, and awarded him £2,500, it heldthat Murphy’s disability played no part in the decision to appoint anotherindividual, who was not disabled. The tribunal accepted the university’sassessment that the other candidate was the best. Murphy appealed, unsuccessfully, to the EAT which held he had notestablished the necessary causative link between his disability and thedecision not to offer him the job. Accordingly, Murphy’s disability was not aneffective and predominant cause of his less favourable treatment. Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed.