In person For the v Mr Markowski (Director) Polish interpreter (assisting both parties): Mr Walas — 2023

Mrs Czerwionka worked as a cleaner for Mario Cleaning Services Ltd from 1 December 2019 until 30 June 2022. The tribunal accepted that there was a downturn in the respondent's work in June 2022 and that this amounted to a genuine redundancy situation. It found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, notwithstanding the wording of the 30 June email, and that the claimant had generally carried out her duties satisfactorily and had no prior performance complaints.

The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was selected for redundancy mainly because Mr Markowski understood that she was planning to go to Poland for six weeks. The tribunal found that this was not an objective selection criterion, that the claimant was not warned or consulted about redundancy, and that she had no meaningful opportunity to challenge the selection or suggest alternatives. It held that consultation was not futile on the facts.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent's choice of pool, being all of its cleaning employees, was within the range of reasonable responses, and that the respondent had taken some reasonable steps to reduce hours and consider alternative work. However, it concluded that the flawed selection criterion and complete absence of meaningful consultation meant the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It also found that there was zero chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, so no Polkey deduction should be made.

The claim for statutory redundancy pay succeeded. The tribunal also found that the respondent had been in breach of its duty to provide written employment particulars. No monetary award was decided at this liability hearing; the basic award, compensatory award, statutory redundancy payment, and any section 38 Employment Act 2002 uplift were left to the remedy hearing.