In person For the v Mr G Ridgeway of Wolverhampton Citation Limited — 2022

Mrs House was employed by the respondent from 1 October 2002 and had for several years been Head of Insight. The respondent undertook a wider restructuring in early 2021, including a merger of the Insight and Innovation services into a new combined R&D service. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had legitimate reasons for the restructure and that there was no basis to question those reasons or the motivations behind them.

In deciding redundancy, the tribunal held that the claimant's role was within a one-person pool and that it was reasonable to do so. It found that the new R&D head role was not a direct match for the claimant's existing role, and that it was holistically a different role at a higher level, with broader responsibilities and a cross-company remit. Although the overall business still required work of a similar kind, the tribunal concluded that the requirement for a role at the claimant's level had diminished within the meaning of section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

On fairness, the tribunal considered selection, consultation and suitable alternative employment under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found the consultation process had shortcomings, particularly in the detail given to the claimant, but these were not enough to make the dismissal unfair because the process was extended, four consultation meetings were held, and the appeal process was thorough. The appeal partially upheld complaints about the detail of consultation and about failures in leadership meetings, but did not overturn the redundancy decision.

The tribunal also found that the claimant was offered the opportunity to apply for the new role twice, including on a priority basis after appeal, and that it was reasonable for the respondent to require an interview and trial period for that senior post. The claimant refused to apply because she maintained the role was a direct match or suitable alternative. The tribunal therefore concluded that the dismissal was fair and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It also noted, in the alternative, that any loss would likely have been negligible in light of the enhanced redundancy payment and the claimant's subsequent employment in the Ministry of Justice.