In person For the v Mr J Heard - Counsel — 2019

Mrs J Waters was employed from 5 August 2012 as Dyson Brand Manager in the respondent's Trade Department. The tribunal found that Dyson's floorcare business changed in April 2018, the claimant's workload reduced, and by September 2018 the respondent's need for a Dyson Brand Manager had diminished. It accepted that the role was genuinely redundant within section 139 ERA 1996 and rejected the claimant's case that the dismissal was really because of her disagreement with Jonathan Metcalfe.

The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair because the redundancy process was not carried out reasonably under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The claimant was given only a very short consultation period, was placed on garden leave when first told she was at risk on 27 September 2018, and the tribunal found that the respondent approached the process with a closed mind. When she raised a grievance about the handling of the process, Mr Sharp relied on the account of Ms Pugh and Ms Haines without meeting the claimant first.

A further defect was the handling of alternative employment. The tribunal found that the Hoover Brand Manager role was a live vacancy when the claimant expressed interest in it during consultation on 3 October 2018, but it was then withdrawn and given to Colin Bence without the claimant being told in advance that it might not be available. On the tribunal's findings, a fairer process would not necessarily have led to dismissal, and it considered that the claimant likely would have remained employed in the Hoover Brand Manager role.

On remedy, the tribunal said the claimant had already received a redundancy payment, so she was not entitled to a basic award. It awarded £450 for loss of statutory rights and invited the parties to agree the remaining compensatory loss, failing which they were to apply for a remedy hearing within 28 days.