- NO ATTENDANCE FOR THE v - Mr T Hussain (litigation Consultant) — 2024

The claimant was employed as Assistant Gardener at Cowley Manor Hotel. Following a decision to close the hotel for a refurbishment expected to last more than six months, the respondent identified three roles as redundant during the closure, including the Assistant Gardener role. The claimant was invited to a meeting on 27 January 2023 at which he was dismissed with immediate effect by reason of redundancy, paid in lieu of notice, and paid statutory redundancy pay. Neither the claimant nor his representative attended the hearing due to medical conditions; the claimant had asked that the hearing proceed in his absence.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that there was a genuine redundancy situation within the meaning of section 139 Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the reason for selection was the belief that the Assistant Gardener role would not be needed during refurbishment, not the claimant's illness. However, the tribunal found there had been no meaningful consultation (the dismissal meeting was the first redundancy meeting) and no right of appeal was offered. Applying Polkey, the tribunal held the dismissal was procedurally unfair and the claim of unfair dismissal succeeded.

On remedy, the tribunal was satisfied a proper procedure would have reached the same conclusion and that consultation and appeal could have been completed within one month, so awarded one month's loss of earnings (£1,543.75) as the compensatory award. No basic award was made because a correct statutory redundancy payment had already been paid. The notice pay claim succeeded on the conceded basis that notice had been calculated on four contractual weeks rather than seven statutory weeks, and the shortfall of £950 was awarded.