Mr N Rull v Estee Lauder Cosmetic Ltd — 2020

Mr N Rull was employed by Estee Lauder Cosmetic Ltd from 13 October 2014 until 20 August 2020, latterly as a full-time Counter Manager for the ADF brand at House of Fraser, Oxford Street on a salary of £25,500. Following declining retail conditions and the impact of Covid-19, the Respondents undertook a large redundancy exercise and placed him at risk on 2 June 2020. The tribunal found that the relevant unit for collective consultation purposes was the individual store, not the wider business, and that HoF Oxford Street was a separate establishment. On that basis, no duty to consult collectively arose there and the protective award claim failed.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the true reason for dismissal was redundancy. It found that the Respondents were entitled to reduce headcount, that the deletion of the Claimant's post was open to them, and that the redundancy process as a whole was within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the mapping exercise properly focused on roles rather than people, that excluding promotions and bumping from the scheme was permissible, and that the priority and tie-break arrangements for vacancies were reasonable.

The tribunal also rejected the Claimant's complaints about the handling of alternative employment. It found that CLM36 was properly treated as a promotional role, that CLM30 had been advertised in error but without prejudice to him, and that BUM02 was a comparable vacancy which he was offered but chose not to accept because of the salary and travel. Although the tribunal identified some imperfections in the redundancy process, including the omission of the EL Croydon vacancy from the published lists, it found that none caused the Claimant disadvantage. In the alternative, it said no compensation would have been awarded because he had received a corresponding redundancy payment and any compensatory award would have been reduced to nil under Polkey.