In person For the v Mrs Pimenta, Solicitor — 2019

The claimant worked for G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd as a Security Officer from November 2012 until 1 October 2019. After moving to 24 hours a week in late 2018, he worked two 12-hour night shifts at 250 Bishopsgate. When RBS left 280 Bishopsgate in June 2019, the respondent created a redundancy pool that included all AROs working between 250 and 280 Bishopsgate, but did not include the Security Officers based at 250 Bishopsgate. The claimant was scored 36 out of 50, below the cut-off of 42, and was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

The tribunal held that it was not fair to include the claimant in the pool while excluding the 250 Bishopsgate Security Officers. It also found that the 'Location' criterion was unreasonable. On the Part-time Workers Regulations claim, the tribunal accepted that the 250 Bishopsgate Security Officers were comparable full-time workers, that the claimant suffered a detriment by being placed in the pool and dismissed, and that there was no objective justification. It found that the effective reason for the different treatment was that the claimant had moved to part-time hours.

The consultation process was described as fair and thorough except that the respondent did not provide individual score sheets or ask employees whether they wanted to review them. The claimant did not ask to see his score sheet, and the tribunal noted that he could have done more to explore redeployment, while also accepting that he had not acted unreasonably in mitigating his loss and had sought night work. In remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant's net weekly loss was about £300, that he had been without the night work for 58 weeks, and that it was fair to assume he would secure replacement work by mid-March 2021. It assessed loss of net earnings at £21,300, loss of pension contributions at £568, and loss of statutory rights at £300, totalling £22,200 before applying a 50% reduction, which produced the award of £11,100.