Mr M Green, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, Ms P Wilson, was employed as a business manager by Kingfisher Lettings Ltd from 1 October 2015 and was made redundant with effect from 31 July 2020. The tribunal recorded that her only claim was unfair dismissal. It rejected the claimant's case that the redundancy process was a sham prompted by her request for a performance bonus, and held instead that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation arising from changes to the business, including automation, outsourcing, a reduced commercial portfolio, and Mr Smith taking on more of the operational work himself.

The tribunal found that Mr Smith had begun considering changes to the business before the dismissal process, including introducing software and outsourcing administrative tasks. It accepted that the business manager role was distinct from the lettings negotiator role, with different duties, pay, hours, and autonomy. The tribunal also found that the overlap between the roles was limited, describing the claimant's occasional cover for the lettings negotiator as insufficient to make the roles interchangeable. On that basis, it held that the business had a diminished requirement for work of the kind carried out by the claimant.

On procedure, the tribunal found that the respondent followed a fair redundancy process with an informal warning meeting, three consultation meetings, and an appeal. It accepted that Ms Beard, the HR consultant, led the process and that the claimant had the opportunity to raise objections, including her arguments about the bonus dispute, the redundancy pool, and alternative roles. It held that the decision to place the claimant in a pool of one was justified, that the lettings negotiator did not need to be included in the pool, and that there was no failure of fairness in not considering transferred redundancy or part-time retention in the circumstances of a small business with limited staffing.

The tribunal concluded that the dismissal met the redundancy definition in s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996 and was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It also noted that, even if an independent appeal chair had been appointed, the outcome was highly likely to have been the same, so Polkey was not in issue. The claim was dismissed and no compensation was awarded.