Case 1300028/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Islam-Choudhary, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300028/2021
- Decision date
- 14 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Islam-Choudhary, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had been employed by IBM since 2000 and was seconded to Tech Data under the C4G programme from October 2018. The tribunal accepted that he was dismissed for redundancy, but noted that the secondment agreement required contact with IBM management and contemplated performance discussion with Tech Data. No annual or interim CheckPoint assessment was carried out during the secondment, and no formal performance report was sought from Tech Data before the redundancy scoring exercise.
IBM ran a redundancy programme in TSS in 2020 and placed the claimant in a sales pool of 44 employees. Mr Jones carried out the scoring using criteria including Skill Level, Potential, Approach to Work and Performance. The tribunal found that Mr Jones did not conduct an independent, objective and adequately evidenced assessment: he relied heavily on an isolated comment from Mr Breslin, on an untested complaint attributed to Ms Corbett, and on a short exchange relayed by Ms Patel with Mr Cary at Tech Data, while failing to follow the training that required robust evidence and input from relevant managers. The tribunal found that the negative material was not properly tested or put to the claimant, and that the process did not pay sufficient regard to the claimant’s secondment context or the structural difficulties affecting Project Maria.
On appeal, Mr Frisby made some changes, including increasing the Approach to Work score, but he also relied on Project Maria’s poor commercial results and did not carry out the fuller inquiry needed to cure the defects in the original selection process. The tribunal held that the appeal did not make the dismissal fair. It concluded that the scoring and ranking exercise was biased, superficial and inadequate, and that the claimant’s dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal also found that there was a 50% chance the claimant would have been dismissed even if a fair process had been followed, so any compensatory award would fall to be reduced by 50% under Polkey principles.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only. The judgment held the unfair dismissal claim well founded and ordered that any compensatory award under s.123 ERA 1996 should be reduced by 50% for Polkey chance. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.139 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Safeway Stores v Burrell
- Murray v Foyle Meats
- British Aerospace v Green
- Samsung Electronics UK Ltd v Monte De Cruz
- Lancaster (Brewers) Ltd v Tattersall
- Nicholls v Rockwell Automation Ltd
- Camelot Group Plc v Hogg
- Pinewood Repro Ltd v Page
- Davies v Farnborough College of Technology
- Polkey principles
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.