Miss J. Fay v Michael Conn Goldsobel — 2021

The tribunal found that the respondent law firm was in a genuine redundancy situation because its workload and finances had declined, legal work had reduced further during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the claimant had been placed on furlough from 15 April 2020 because there was not enough work for her. It rejected the claimant’s case that a planned merger with another firm was the real reason for dismissal and held that the claimant was dismissed on 10 August 2020 by reason of redundancy.

On fairness, the tribunal held that the respondent acted within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the claimant had sufficient warning of the risk of redundancy at the 11 May 2020 staff meeting and in the follow-up individual meetings, that she was reasonably placed in a pool of one because her litigation role was not interchangeable with Ms Gross’s specialist employment and data protection role, and that selection criteria did not arise. It also found that consultation was meaningful, that the respondent properly considered redeployment to the corporate department but no suitable work was available, and that the overall process, including the appeal opportunity and the handling of Ms Gross’s involvement, was fair.

The commission claim failed as a matter of contractual interpretation. The tribunal held that clause 9.1 gave the claimant commission only during the currency of her appointment, that the right did not continue after termination, and that an implied term for commission for a 'reasonable period' after dismissal was neither necessary nor consistent with the express contract terms, including clause 13.1(a). The holiday pay/unlawful deduction claim was withdrawn after the parties agreed a sum had been paid and the claimant confirmed receipt, so there was no award on that head.