Ms E Blenkinsopp v David Lloyd Leisure Limited — 2020

The claimant was employed as Group Exercise Coordinator and was told on 4 November 2019 that her role was at risk of redundancy following changes to the fitness management structure, including the move to a self-employed personal trainer model and automatic pay arrangements. She resigned with immediate effect during a further consultation meeting on 11 November 2019, before the redundancy process had concluded.

The Tribunal found there was evidence of a genuine redundancy situation and that the respondent had entered into consultation. It was not established that the process was a sham, predetermined, or amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. The Tribunal therefore found there was no dismissal, and the constructive dismissal/unfair dismissal claim failed. Because the claimant resigned immediately and did not offer to work her notice period, the notice pay claim also failed.

On age discrimination, the Tribunal considered the age profile of the Harrogate workforce, the removal of the claimant's photograph from a gym team board, holiday cover by a younger employee, and the claimant's previous treatment when she held a Health and Safety Manager maternity cover role. It found the evidence did not establish facts from which it could conclude that the claimant was treated less favourably because of age, or that age was a reason for her selection for potential redundancy.