Mr K Wasiak v Polypipe Limited Heard: via CVP in the North East Region — 2024

The claimant brought a claim for a redundancy payment after his employment with Polypipe Limited ended on 2 July 2023. The Tribunal identified the only issue as whether he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. Employment Judge Ayre, sitting alone, heard evidence from the claimant and from the respondent’s Transport Manager and Interim Operations Director.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had carried out an analysis of HGV drivers’ working hours and concluded that drivers were being paid for an average of 55 hours a week when their recorded work averaged less than that. After consultation, the respondent proposed to change drivers’ pay to 50 hours a week. There was no reduction in the number of HGV drivers employed, no reduction in the amount of work for drivers, and no closure of the business or the claimant’s workplace. The claimant refused the revised terms, was given notice and an offer of re-engagement on new terms, and did not accept the offer.

On those findings, the Tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the statutory presumption under section 163(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was displaced. The Tribunal found that the case did not fall within section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because there had been no cessation or diminution in the employer’s requirement for employees to do work of the kind the claimant had been doing. The Tribunal said the dismissal was instead due to some other substantial reason, namely a change in contractual terms that the claimant refused to agree to.

The claim for a redundancy payment was therefore not well founded and was dismissed. No monetary award was made.