Mr L de Rose v Coleg Llanymddyfri (Cymru) — 2021

Mr L de Rose had been employed by Coleg Llanymddyfri (Cymru) since 2013 as a Modern Languages and Latin teacher, with Spanish as his main subject and some earlier teaching of French and Latin. The tribunal found that by January 2019 the respondent faced a substantial financial shortfall, that a curriculum review had recommended rationalising language provision, and that the governing body decided to phase out Spanish because of pupil demand and cost pressures. A consultation process followed in March 2019, the claimant was told his post was at risk of redundancy, and on 5 April 2019 he was confirmed redundant with a termination date of 31 August 2019 and a tax-free redundancy payment of £3,412.50.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's case that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal and rejected the claimant's case that he had been selected because of earlier tensions with former Warden Guy Ayling or because of the vote of no confidence. It found no basis to conclude that Mr Ayling had orchestrated the decision to remove Spanish or the claimant, and it drew no adverse inference from the absence of some pre-option trawl documents. The tribunal accepted that the governing body had approved the phase-out of Spanish on the evidence before it, including the financial position and the low level of interest in Spanish GCSE.

On fairness, the tribunal held that a pool of one was within the range of reasonable responses because the claimant could not teach A level French, had not taught French above Key Stage 3, and the other modern languages staff taught different combinations of subjects or had management responsibilities. It found that the claimant had an opportunity to raise the consultation issues, that the decision not to widen the pool or bump Robin Edwards was not unreasonable, and that there was no ICT role available during the consultation period. A later ICT vacancy was advertised but the claimant did not apply. The tribunal also held that the later suspension and disciplinary process arising from the Troy lesson was a reasonable response and was not contrived to remove him from employment. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.