Mr Eghosa Omorodion v Firmdale Hotels plc — 2022

The Claimant was employed by Firmdale Hotels plc as a security officer. After the Covid-19 pandemic closed the Soho Hotel and reduced available work, he was placed on furlough from 1 April 2020. The Tribunal found that his contracted hours were 42 per week and that, by the time of dismissal, the Respondent no longer needed a full-time security officer for those hours because the requirements of the business for that work had diminished.

The Respondent repeatedly sought to bring the Claimant back to work at Ham Yard Hotel on reduced hours through the flexible furlough scheme and, later, through redundancy consultation offers. The Tribunal found that the 19 July 2020 letter and some later communications were unclear and caused confusion between the flexible furlough proposal and the redundancy process. It also found, however, that the role at Ham Yard Hotel was similar in nature to his existing work and within his skill set, and that the Claimant’s refusal to return to work on the basis of his misunderstanding was unreasonable.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal accepted redundancy as the reason for dismissal under section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996 and held that the dismissal was fair under section 98 ERA 1996. It found that the Respondent had carried out consultation, considered alternative work, and acted within the range of reasonable responses, even though its communications with the Claimant were not always clear and did not fully address his concerns about reduced hours and pay.

On the statutory redundancy payment claim, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had not shown that the offers made to the Claimant were suitable employment for the purposes of section 141 ERA 1996, because the guaranteed hours and pay were reduced and there was no guarantee of his previous 42-hour week. It therefore found that the Claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. The judgment did not quantify that payment, and the parties were invited to resolve remedy or request a further hearing if needed. The breach of contract claim was withdrawn during the hearing after the Respondent accepted that the SIA licence cost was reimbursable.