Mr A Gladwin v Lucas Lee Ltd Heard in Leeds — 2023

Mr A Gladwin was employed by Lucas Lee Ltd from 16 November 2016 as an associate director/senior project manager and quantity surveyor. His employment ended on 5 January 2022. The tribunal recorded that the breach of contract claim and the two unlawful deduction claims were withdrawn and dismissed, including the £195 vehicle-repair deduction claim and the out-of-time claims about vehicle use and expense receipts. The only claim left for determination was unfair dismissal.

The respondent had begun a restructuring process in July 2021 affecting the claimant’s role in the quantity surveyor department. The tribunal found that the business was in difficulties and that the need for the work carried out by the claimant and Walter had ceased. The claimant was told his role was at risk of redundancy, was consulted on 30 July 2021, invited to apply for a trainee role and offered an alternative business development role, both at £30,000 compared with his previous salary of £70,000. He was off work with illness and anxiety for part of the process, but the tribunal found he was adequately warned and consulted.

The claimant argued that redundancy was not the real reason for dismissal and relied on matters including the car issue, a 2019 without prejudice letter, a furlough disciplinary issue, appraisal matters, a forced holiday, the health and safety register, the interview questions, and short deadlines while he was sick. The tribunal rejected those matters as evidence of a sham process, noting that several were raised only in the appeal or witness statement, not in the consultation meetings, and that the respondent’s evidence was preferred. It found the redundancy reason genuine, the selection exercise based on a pool of two, the score-based outcome legitimate, and the search for alternative employment adequate in the circumstances.

The tribunal concluded that dismissal was the only course open to the respondent and that this was not a case of some other substantial reason. Applying section 98(1)(a) and (b), (2) and (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it held that the dismissal was fair and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.