Mr. D Pender v International Currency Exchange Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that Mr Pender was dismissed by reason of redundancy. It accepted the Respondent’s evidence that the requirements for sales consultants had diminished during the Covid-19 pandemic, and it held that redundancy was a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

On procedure, the tribunal found that a fair redundancy process was followed. It noted the letters sent in May and June 2020, the collective consultation with the RMT and the staff representative Ms Guarino, the explanation of the proposed selection criteria, and the meetings during which staff were able to raise concerns. It also found that the Respondent considered alternatives such as job sharing, part-time working, and available vacancies, but that none were available or taken up.

On substance, the tribunal held that it was within the range of reasonable responses for the Respondent to use the four selection criteria it chose, including one-to-one sales performance and average transaction value (ATV), and to omit length of service. It rejected the argument that the ATV criterion was unfair because the Claimant worked only at Kings Cross, finding on the evidence that there was no discernible difference between customers at the different branches in terms of the amount of money available to exchange. It also found that the Claimant’s score was correctly calculated and that his appeal, including the recalculation without ATV, did not change the outcome.

Because the tribunal found the dismissal fair, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. It added that if there had been a procedural unfairness, no compensatory award would have been made on a Polkey basis because the same redundancy outcome would inevitably have followed even without the alleged flaw.