In Person v Respondent — 2021

The claimant was employed as a band 6 Acute Care Research Nurse and was affected by a 2018 restructure of the R&D Directorate. The tribunal found that the consultation papers and related communications described the exercise as downbanding, did not tell the claimant that her band 6 post was at risk of redundancy, and did not explain that the band 5 role carried a four-week trial period. It preferred the claimant's evidence on disputed issues and found that the respondent's HR team had misled her about the process.

The tribunal found that the claimant's band 6 post ceased to exist when the new structure was implemented and that the post was redundant. It rejected the contention that there had been a dismissal on 3 December 2018 under the Hogg v Dover College line of authority, holding instead that the claimant remained employed under protest while the grievance process continued. It also found that, after the grievance appeal, the claimant withdrew her resignation by agreement and that the respondent later served formal redundancy notice on 25 January 2019, terminating employment on 22 March 2019. The principal reason for dismissal was redundancy and the dismissal was unfair.

On remedy, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and to a compensatory award running from 25 January 2019 to 3 March 2019, the day before she started her new role with another trust. It dismissed the claim for an enhanced contractual redundancy payment and the notice-pay claim because the claimant had resigned before the expiry of the notice period. The reasons did not quantify the monetary awards, and the tribunal directed the parties to notify it if a separate remedy hearing was required.