Case 2203629/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms RA Nyametscher Severin v V&A Enterprises Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203629/2021
- Decision date
- 28 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms RA Nyametscher Severin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs RA Nyametscher Severin worked as a Gallery Assistant for V&A Enterprises Limited from 26 November 2018 until her dismissal with effect from 28 February 2021. The tribunal found that the museum faced a redundancy situation during and after the Covid-19 closure periods, with visitor numbers and associated spend falling sharply and a recovery programme requiring significant staffing reductions. It held that the requirements of the business for Gallery Assistants had diminished within the meaning of section 139 ERA 1996.
The respondent carried out collective and individual consultation, sent the claimant written notifications, offered a consultation meeting, and circulated vacancies to those at risk. The claimant did not attend her booked individual consultation meeting and did not provide input into the proposed selection criteria. The tribunal found the selection pool of all Gallery Assistants and the phase 1 criteria were reasonable in the circumstances, noting that the criteria were consulted on with unions and then applied through a scoring process involving two senior managers and an independent review stage. The claimant scored 29 against a threshold of 38.5 and was given notice of redundancy on 15 January 2021.
On appeal, Vernon Rapley considered the points raised by the claimant and upheld the scores and the redundancy decision. The tribunal found the process, including the appeal, to be fair and reasonable overall, and concluded that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to find suitable alternative employment. It also found no basis to treat the prior interactions between the claimant and the scoring managers as making the process unfair, and accepted the respondent's evidence that the scores were reached independently and without bias.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal claim against V&A Enterprises Limited was dismissed. The claims against V&A Foundation and V&A Limited were withdrawn after it was explained that V&A Enterprises Limited was the claimant's employer. The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's universal credit complaint for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against V&A Foundation; withdrawn after the tribunal explained that the claimant's employer was V&A Enterprises Limited. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against V&A Limited; withdrawn after the tribunal explained that the claimant's employer was V&A Enterprises Limited. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against V&A Enterprises Limited; the tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and was fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim concerning universal credit; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine benefit entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- British Aerospace plc v Green
- Swinburne and Jackson LLP v Simpson
- Nicholls v Rockwell Automation Ltd
- Dabson v David Cover and Sons Ltd
- Wess v Science Museum Group
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.