Case 2206685/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Guarino v International Currency Exchange Ltd Heard via Cloud Video Platform — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206685/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Guarino
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Guarino was dismissed by International Currency Exchange Ltd by reason of redundancy following the closure of the St Pancras branch during the pandemic. The tribunal identified the issue as whether the respondent adopted fair redundancy selection criteria and whether it applied them fairly. It found that the criteria themselves were objective and measurable, and that the respondent was entitled to use the criteria it chose, including targets, average transaction value, sickness and disciplinary record.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's challenge to the criteria as such, including her argument about attendance and the use of sickness absence. It accepted that the respondent was entitled to use attendance as a criterion and that the claimant's attendance score would not have changed even if one absence had been disregarded. However, it held that the respondent did not apply the criteria fairly because of the way they were applied to KW, who had only a very short period of assessable work in the pool and whose results were treated as comparable with employees who had worked for the full year.
The tribunal found that KW's score, particularly for performance, was a significant outlier and that no sufficient enquiry was made into whether the short assessment period produced a fair result. It concluded that the use of 401 transactions and approximately three weeks of solo work, compared with the rest of the pool, was not a fair application of the selection criteria. Ms Guarino had been ranked 11th out of 19 and was the highest-ranked employee selected for redundancy, so moving up one place would have avoided dismissal. The tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was adjourned to a later hearing listed for 12 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the claim because the respondent unfairly applied its redundancy selection criteria, particularly in relation to the short assessment period and the treatment of KW. Remedy was not decided in this judgment and was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.