Case 1600402/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Maria Thomas v Shaw Trust Limited (The) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600402/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Duncan Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Maria Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for a genuine redundancy situation arising from a downturn and restructuring, which the claimant herself accepted. The issue was therefore whether the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal.
On alternative employment, the tribunal found that the respondent took reasonable steps to identify and communicate available roles, invited expressions of interest, reminded the claimant about the application deadline, and interviewed her for the Commercial Partnership Manager role. It concluded that the respondent acted proactively and that the claimant had opportunities to pursue other roles but did not do so.
The tribunal also found the interview and scoring process for the alternative role was fair, with an experienced panel, reasonable questions, and a moderated scoring exercise. It rejected the claimant's complaints about the appeal stages, holding that Richard Clifton was an appropriate person to review the selection decision, that the written appeal process was fair in the circumstances, and that the later appeal against dismissal was also handled reasonably. The claim for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy and held the dismissal was fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Williams guidelines
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.