1 Mr S Kousiounis 2 Mrs E Kousiounis v Grand Pier Ltd Heard by Cloud video — 2021

Mr and Mrs Kousiounis were employed by Grand Pier Ltd at the Waterfront Fish Bar on annualised hours contracts. The company accepted that they had been dismissed, but disputed that the reason was redundancy. The tribunal recorded that the claimants were offered new terms in late 2019, including zero hours contracts, removal of payment for work the company said they were refusing to do, and a reduction in paid winter holiday, and that they were given notice in February 2020 after negotiations failed and they declined the new contracts.

The tribunal applied s.139 Employment Rights Act 1996 and asked whether the dismissals were wholly or mainly attributable to a cessation or diminution in the employer's requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind. It rejected the argument that a proposed move to zero hours contracts, by itself, necessarily established redundancy. It also rejected the submission that reducing paid holiday meant the requirement for work had reduced, because that affected pay during the non-working period rather than the amount of seasonal work the claimants would perform.

The tribunal considered the evidence on whether the company's intention or expectation was that the claimants' hours would in fact reduce under the new contract. It noted that there was no detailed analysis showing how savings would be achieved through reduced hours, and no assurance given during consultation that hours would not fall, but it did not accept that the consultation documents amounted to an admission that hours would reduce. It found no evidence of any change to the way the fish bar was to be operated, such as reduced opening hours or new equipment, and found that the claimants would continue in the same roles as before apart from work they were refusing to do.

The tribunal concluded that the requirements of the company for employees to carry out work of a particular kind had neither ceased nor diminished nor were expected to do so. The dismissals were therefore not by reason of redundancy, and the claimants were not entitled to redundancy payments.