Mr I Harvey v Eastleigh College — 2021

The tribunal found that Eastleigh College dismissed Mr I Harvey by reason of redundancy on 27 August 2019. It accepted that the college was under financial pressure from reduced government funding and falling learner numbers, and that a wider restructuring was being implemented alongside a digital strategy that reduced the need for central printing services. The tribunal found that the Reprographics Assistant role was redundant because the Unit was to close when the lease on the printing equipment expired, and that the claimant's position was a unique job that would no longer be required.

The tribunal found that the respondent had consulted with the recognised trade unions about the proposed restructuring, but that collective consultation was not required on the facts found because the proposed redundancies did not reach the statutory threshold. It also found that the claimant had been taken through a series of individual consultation meetings, had been given a written rationale, had been offered the chance to make a counterproposal, and had been told about potential vacancies. The claimant did not apply for the vacancies notified to him and declined the offer to continue working in the Unit on an ad hoc basis until closure. The appeal was also found to have been conducted fairly, with an independent investigation after the hearing and no conflict of interest in Mrs Edrich chairing the appeal panel.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair under the redundancy provisions and that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. It also rejected the claimant's argument that there should have been collective consultation by reference to the number of redundancies, finding that he had misunderstood the scope of collective and individual consultation and that the number of redundancies anticipated and implemented did not support his case.

The claim for unlawful deduction from wages failed because the claimant could not particularise the alleged deduction. The respondent's records showed that he had been paid all wages and accrued holiday pay due to him up to the effective date of termination, and the tribunal noted that any such claim would also have faced timeliness difficulties because the alleged deduction was said to have occurred in the previous year.