Jane Lenny v National Federation of Roofing Contractors Ltd — 2022

The claimant, Jane Lenny, was employed by the National Federation of Roofing Contractors Ltd from 1 May 2018 and was dismissed on 10 September 2020 by reason of redundancy. The tribunal rejected her application to amend the claim to add breach of contract because it was made significantly outside the normal time limit and sought to reopen matters already argued and decided in her separate arrears of pay claim.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely redundancy, and then considered fairness under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the Covid-19 pandemic created very difficult and uncertain trading conditions for the respondent, and accepted that the respondent had not targeted the claimant because she had raised a grievance or delayed the process to keep her out of alternative roles.

The tribunal was critical of the timing and speed of the consultation process. It found that the claimant was not notified that she was at risk until 22 July 2020 and that the process was rushed and truncated, with her representations given less attention than would normally be expected. However, it accepted the respondent's evidence that the alternative roles the claimant identified had already been filled, or were not suitable alternatives, before the redundancy process began.

The tribunal concluded that there was no need for selection criteria because it was the claimant's specific role that was redundant, and collective redundancy consultation did not apply. It also noted that the appeal process addressed many of the claimant's concerns, including access to alternative roles. Overall, the dismissal and the procedure used did not fall outside the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in those circumstances, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal added that, even if the procedure had been unfair, compensation would have been reduced to nil because the basic award was covered by statutory redundancy pay and any compensatory award would have been reduced by 100% because the claimant would have been dismissed in any event.