In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Winmark Ltd arising from his redundancy as a Network Director / Head of Revenue. The tribunal found that the respondent had embarked on a digital pivot before and during the first covid-19 lockdown, that sales demand had fallen, and that the respondent no longer needed a face-to-face sales team of Network Directors. It held that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy within s.139 Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the dismissal decision had been predetermined or that the consultation was not meaningful. It found that the respondent explained the proposal in the at-risk letter and business case, held consultation meetings on 3 and 16 April 2020, answered the claimant’s questions in writing and by email, and offered furlough as an alternative to redundancy. It also found that the respondent created or adjusted alternative roles during the process, including a C-suite Manager role, and that another at-risk employee was appointed into that role.

The tribunal further held that the respondent acted reasonably in excluding Stephen Moore from the redundancy pool, in not offering pay protection, and in not supplying its old redundancy policy until after dismissal. It accepted the respondent’s explanations for the handling of trial periods, the appeal process, and garden leave. Applying the fairness test under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the redundancy authorities cited in the judgment, it concluded that the pool selection was reasonable, consultation was meaningful, reasonable efforts were made to find alternatives, and the dismissal was fair. The claim was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.