Mr K Keld v Kebbell Developments Ltd — 2021

The claimant, Mr K Keld, worked for Kebbell Developments Ltd as a forklift truck driver at a residential development site. The tribunal found that he was dismissed on 24 July 2020, when he was told at a meeting with the site manager that he was being laid off, that his work would end that day, and that he would receive pay for two weeks and redundancy. The respondent later confirmed in writing that the forklift driver role at Scarborough was redundant and that his employment had ended on 24 July 2020.

The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal and that the respondent's motivation was financial, including the use of a self-employed contractor rather than an employee in the role. It found that redundancy was a potentially fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also referred to the redundancy and fairness authorities it relied on, including section 98(4), section 139, Polkey, Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd, and Safeway Stores v Burrell.

The dismissal was held to be unfair because the respondent did not carry out a meaningful consultation process. The tribunal found that, by the time of the meeting on 24 July 2020, the decision to make the claimant redundant had already been made and the meeting was simply to inform him of that decision. There was no adequate warning that he was only at risk, no proper opportunity to suggest alternatives or ask questions, no meaningful consideration of alternatives, no adherence to the respondent's stated redundancy procedure, and no right of appeal was afforded. The tribunal concluded that the conduct fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.

On Polkey, the tribunal found there was a 50% chance that the claimant would still have been dismissed fairly if a proper consultation process had been followed. It considered that a fair process, including consultation and appeal, would have taken about 4 weeks from 27 July 2020. The hearing was liability only, with remedy to follow. The tribunal noted that the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment, so there was no entitlement to a basic award at this stage.