In person v Blachair Illuminations Ltd — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant’s role was genuinely redundant as part of a restructure at the respondent’s Brockley depot. It accepted that some elements of his former duties were redistributed, but there was no replacement role in the structure. The respondent had also started redundancy consultation, and the claimant was dismissed on 10 December 2019 with redundancy pay and pay in lieu of notice.

The central issue was whether the respondent should have placed the claimant in a pool for selection for the new operations manager/head of operations role later filled by Jonathan Bradford on a salary of £53,000. The tribunal found that this was an entirely new and more strategic role with substantially greater responsibilities than the claimant’s assistant contracts manager role, and that the claimant’s people-management responsibilities were negligible by comparison. It accepted that Mr Bradford had existing experience and a design qualification that made him particularly suitable for key duties in the new post.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and considering redundancy consultation and alternative employment, the tribunal held it was not appropriate to create a pool including the claimant and Mr Bradford. It also noted that the respondent had offered the claimant two other live vacancies, sales manager and project manager, which he declined. Even if a pool of two had been created, the tribunal found there was no chance the claimant would have been appointed, given his limited qualifications and experience and the need for someone already competent in the role. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as not well-founded.