Mr J. Neckles, trade union representative For the v Respondent — 2020

The claims for breach of contract and race discrimination had already been dismissed on withdrawal before the merits hearing. The tribunal heard claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination arising from Ms West's redundancy by Workplace Options Ltd following a global restructure.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal and found it reasonable not to pool Ms West with the other directors across different offices. It also found that the consultation began when the respondent was entitled to start it and was not a sham, despite the 1 September 2017 email that had been sent in error. The dismissal was nevertheless unfair because the respondent did not give Ms West the opportunity to apply for the HR Partner & Talent Acquisition Specialist vacancy that was given to Mr Donnelly without advertisement.

The tribunal held that there was no chance Ms West would have been appointed to that HR role even if she had been allowed to apply, because she did not meet the minimum experience criteria and Mr Donnelly was the obvious candidate. It therefore applied a 100% deduction under the Polkey principle. The tribunal also said that statutory redundancy pay was set off against the basic award which would otherwise have been payable, so no compensation was awarded for the unfair dismissal.

On sex discrimination, the tribunal rejected the allegations of pre-designation for redundancy, failure to pool Ms West with Mr Donnelly including the HR vacancy, and dismissal with immediate effect for raising a grievance about the 1 September 2017 email. It found there was no evidence that the treatment was because of sex, and it noted that the grievance had been upheld, apologised for, and followed by a fresh consultation process.