免责声明:本网站不构成法律建议。法律法规和判例法会发生变化。请务必就您的具体情况咨询合格的律师。

所有案例
Employment Law
House of Lords
1988

Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd

[1988] AC 344

判决理由

An employer cannot argue that a failure to follow a fair procedure made no difference to the outcome. Procedural fairness is an essential element of a fair dismissal. However, if the tribunal finds that dismissal would have occurred anyway, compensation may be reduced accordingly (the 'Polkey reduction').

事实

Mr Polkey was made redundant without any prior warning or consultation. The employer argued that consultation would have made no difference to the outcome.

判决摘要

The House of Lords held the dismissal was unfair due to lack of consultation. The 'no difference' argument could not make an unfair dismissal fair, but could be relevant to the amount of compensation.

关键引述

"An employer having prima facie grounds to dismiss will in the great majority of cases not act reasonably in treating the reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal unless and until he has taken the steps, conveniently classified in most of the authorities as 'procedural', which are necessary in the circumstances."

Lord Bridge

后续处理

Foundational

The Polkey principle and Polkey reduction remain central to unfair dismissal law.

Related Content