In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The Respondent is a charity that was losing substantial Royal British Legion funding. The tribunal accepted that Mr Holloway asked Mr Allen to review support functions in 2019, that the review considered the Data Protection Officer role and other cost-saving changes, and that there had been no informal decision to dismiss the Claimant before 2019. It also found that Mr Holloway did not know the Claimant had met trustees about the handling of the young women's complaints.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy and that the Data Protection Officer post was a standalone role. It accepted that a pool of one was reasonable, that the Respondent made reasonable efforts to avoid dismissal by looking for other DPO work and considering alternatives, and that the business case and consultation process were fair. The business case was given on 9 March 2020, the first consultation was on 10 March, and a second consultation followed on 16 April after the Claimant had been ill with covid-19; the tribunal held that the timing of documents, the short delay in the first meeting notes, and the later transcript of the second meeting did not make the process unfair.

The age discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal found that age played no part in the redundancy decision or in the decision not to offer the Claimant the PA role, and that the Claimant had not said she wanted that role. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that the temporary agency PA and later virtual PA arrangements were cost-saving measures and that the Claimant, had she held the DPO post, would have been made redundant for the same reasons whatever her age. No remedy was awarded because both claims were dismissed.