Mrs J Eldridge v Independent Leisure Ltd — 2021

Mrs J Eldridge worked for Independent Leisure Ltd as a bookkeeper from 16 October 2012 until her dismissal on 21 August 2020. She relied on a September 2019 grievance, an email complaint to Wakefield Council about health and safety matters, and a 27 July 2020 conversation about VAT as the alleged protected disclosures or background to the dismissal. The tribunal found that the grievance had been formally investigated and dealt with, that there was insufficient evidence to conclude any union-representative complaint was a protected disclosure, and that the council complaint was a protected disclosure but had not caused the dismissal. It also preferred Ashley Crecraft's account of the July 2020 VAT conversation and found that it was not a protected disclosure.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the business had been materially affected by COVID-19, that trading restrictions and financial pressures led to cost-cutting discussions, and that it was considering whether the claimant's bookkeeping role could be absorbed. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy, not any grievance or disclosure, and that the earlier matters relied on by the claimant played no part in the decision. The tribunal therefore dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal and automatic unfair redundancy claims under s103A and s105 ERA 1996.

On the ordinary unfair dismissal issue, the tribunal applied s98(4) ERA 1996 and found that the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal. It accepted that the claimant was offered an alternative reduced-hours role of one day a week, with pay to continue under furlough arrangements, and that the respondent had properly considered alternatives before issuing notice of redundancy when the revised contract was not accepted. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.