Miss Katy Evans v Northern Belle Limited — 2023

Miss Katy Evans was dismissed by Northern Belle Limited by reason of redundancy after the respondent reduced staffing and restructured work during the COVID-19 downturn. The tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy because the need for an in-house Accounts Manager had diminished and the claimant's former duties were being dispersed between DPP accounts staff, Harrisons Accountants, Mr Susans and the reservations team.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's TUPE case. It held that only a small element of her work went to Harrisons and that there had been no relevant transfer or service provision change under TUPE Regulation 3 because the activities carried out by Harrisons were not fundamentally the same as the claimant's former activities. Liability for any dismissal therefore remained with the respondent.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the consultation process in February 2021 was short, but found that the overall process, including the appeal, was within the band of reasonable responses. The dismissal was nevertheless unfair because the respondent made a fatal error in not offering the claimant the part-time Reservations Executive vacancy advertised in early March 2021. The tribunal held that the respondent should not have assumed she would not be interested. Applying the Polkey question, it went on to find that, on the balance of probabilities, she would not have accepted the role even if it had been offered, so remedy was left for a separate hearing.

The further redundancy payment claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant worked for the respondent's predecessor between 2002 and 2006, but found that the evidence did not establish continuous employment throughout that period. It found that her work was done under a series of short-term contracts, with breaks in continuity, so the respondent was entitled to treat her continuous service as starting on 1 July 2006 when calculating statutory redundancy pay.