Mrs C Wigley v Vuzion UK Ltd and 1 other — 2022

Mrs C Wigley was employed from 1 September 2016 and, from 1 June 2020, by Vuzion UK Ltd. She worked as a Senior Content Writer and was the only dedicated content writer across the Vuzion/Cobweb businesses. After new Marketing Managers were appointed in around May 2021, Vuzion decided that it no longer required a dedicated content writer and placed the claimant at risk of redundancy on 20 July 2021. The tribunal accepted that Vuzion, rather than Cobweb, was the claimant's employer at the relevant time, although that issue fell away during the hearing.

The tribunal found that there was a genuine redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996 because Vuzion's need for content writing had diminished and its need for a dedicated employee to carry out that work had ceased. It accepted that the claimant's work could be redistributed among existing employees and that her role was not replaced after she left. The tribunal did not treat the closure of Vuzion's Data Centre as determinative, noting that the witnesses who referred to it did not have detailed knowledge of the claimant's actual work and that the claimant's own evidence was that she did not write content for the Data Centre.

On fairness, the tribunal held that it was reasonable to place the claimant in a pool of one because she was the only dedicated content writer and there were no other similar roles to pool with hers. It also held that the respondent was not obliged to consider bumping her into one of the Marketing Manager roles, which were materially different. The tribunal accepted that consultation was imperfect: there was no written redundancy policy, the 27 July 2021 meeting was confusingly described as without prejudice, most meetings were not minuted, the grievance and appeal responses were brief, and it would have been preferable for another senior manager to have handled the complaints. Even so, taking the process as a whole and having regard to the size and resources of the business, the tribunal found the consultation and dismissal decision remained within the range of reasonable responses.

The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed. The tribunal noted that the claimant had found new employment from 10 January 2022 at a higher salary and had no ongoing loss, but no remedy was awarded because the claim failed.