And v Mr S Schwarz ConSol Partners Limited Heard by: CVP — 2021

The tribunal accepted that there was a genuine redundancy situation arising from the Covid-19 downturn and the Respondent's move from a 360 degree model to a 180 degree model. The Claimant had been employed since 26 August 2009 and was dismissed for redundancy on 25 September 2020 after consultation meetings on 4, 14 and 22 September 2020 and an unsuccessful appeal heard by Mr Anderson on 20 October 2020.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the tribunal found that the Respondent failed properly to apply its mind to whether the Claimant should have been included in a redundancy pool with Mr Cox. The judge accepted the Claimant's evidence that the Claimant's and Mr Cox's roles were largely interchangeable after the restructuring, and held that the underlying skills remained the same despite different titles and a change in reporting structure. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's position that the Claimant's role was unique.

By contrast, the tribunal held that it was within the range of reasonable responses to exclude Mr Wallin from the pool. His role was treated as distinct because he worked in a separate part of the business focused on permanent IT specialists and technical sectors such as automotive. The tribunal found that the consultation process was fair overall and that alternative employment had been considered, but the Respondent did not properly engage with the pool issue throughout consultation and appeal.

On remedy, the tribunal said that any compensatory award should be reduced by 50% under Polkey because it could not decide whether the Claimant or Mr Cox would have been selected if a fair pool and selection criteria had been applied. It also recorded that the Claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment and therefore had no entitlement to a basic award. The judgment did not quantify compensation and invited the parties to contact the tribunal for a remedy hearing if they could not agree the amount.