Mrs C Yildiz-Kurtulus v Unilever UK Central Resources Limited — 2021

The claim was for a statutory redundancy payment only under the Employment Rights Act 1996. At the outset of the hearing, the tribunal refused the claimant’s application to amend the claim to plead constructive dismissal under s.136(1)(c), but allowed an amendment to argue that the end of the temporary role could amount to a dismissal under s.136(1)(b). The tribunal then found that the claimant’s earlier 2018 redundancy situation ended when she accepted the ITPD role from 1 January 2019, and that s.138 applied so there was no dismissal at the end of 2018.

On the facts found, the claimant sent clear emails on 4 December 2019 saying that she had decided to leave Unilever rather than stay before her redundancy deadline. The tribunal found that those emails were a voluntary resignation, that the respondent understood them as such, and that the claimant later asked whether the email counted as her resignation or whether she needed to write again. The respondent accepted the resignation and held her to notice. The tribunal also found that the ITPD contract was not a limited-term contract, so s.136(1)(b) did not apply.

The tribunal further found that, even if there had been a dismissal in February 2020, there was no redundancy situation at that point because the respondent’s need for the work had not ceased or diminished. It found that the new WL3 role was an evolution of the role the claimant had been doing, that the role was intended for her, and that it would have been suitable alternative employment under s.141. The tribunal said that, had there been a redundancy dismissal, refusal of that role would have been unreasonable. The claim was therefore dismissed and no statutory redundancy payment was due.