Mr G Harrop v Anwyl Construction Company limited — 2021

Mr Harrop was employed as a Sales Adviser and was dismissed on 23 August 2020 after the respondent reduced its sales adviser headcount from 17 to 14 in response to market conditions and reduced conveyancing completions during the Covid-19 pandemic. The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal. It rejected the claimant's suggestion that the earlier January 2020 proposal to reduce his working week from four days to two showed that the respondent had previously tried to dispense with his services.

Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the redundancy authorities relied on by the respondent, including Polkey and Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd, the tribunal found that the claimant had been warned and consulted, and that the pool of all 17 Sales Advisers was reasonable. It held that the selection criteria were clear and objective, and that the claimant was aware by the consultation meeting on 13 July 2020 that the first criterion was being assessed by individual sales reservations rather than team targets.

The tribunal found no unfairness in the scoring of the criteria for training, customer service, administration, timekeeping, absence or disciplinary record. It accepted that there had been an error in later references to a January 2019 mystery shop, but found that this information had not been used in the actual assessment period and did not render the selection unfair. It also found no bias or obvious error in the scoring exercise.

At the point of dismissal, the tribunal was satisfied that no suitable alternative employment was available. A later vacancy at Longridge, Lancashire was raised with the claimant, but he did not confirm any interest. The appeal against redundancy dismissal was not upheld, and the claim was dismissed as not well founded.