Mr Alex McDonald v Cae (uk) plc — 2022

Mr Alex McDonald was employed by CAE (UK) PLC as a Synthetic Flight Instructor from 1 April 2016 and was dismissed on 31 October 2020 after accepting voluntary redundancy during a collective redundancy process prompted by the COVID-19 downturn. The tribunal found that the pandemic caused a significant reduction in demand for business aviation training, that the respondent consulted collectively, and that the STI headcount target was met through five voluntary redundancies and two resignations, with no compulsory redundancies in that team.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the redundancy was a sham or that the later recruitment of two SFIs in November 2020 showed there had been no redundancy situation. It found those two appointments replaced employees who had resigned after the claimant had already accepted voluntary redundancy, and that the respondent still had a reduced STI headcount. It also found that the proposed relocation of simulators from Amsterdam was uncertain on 16 October 2020 and that a final agreement was not reached until 10 December 2020, so the later January 2021 vacancies were not available before the claimant's employment ended.

On fairness, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been pressured into taking voluntary redundancy. It accepted that he was concerned about the proposed compulsory redundancy scoring, including the effect of his live disciplinary warning, but found no evidence that the respondent told him he had no real choice. The tribunal also held that, once the claimant had entered a binding voluntary redundancy agreement on 23 August 2020, the respondent acted within the range of reasonable responses in not offering later vacancies or ad hoc work to him. It considered that the claimant did not indicate any wish to remain employed, did not seek to withdraw from the agreement, and did not show that he would have accepted less favourable terms if alternative roles had been offered.

Because the claim failed, the tribunal did not need to determine Polkey or contributory fault for remedy purposes. The judgment records that the claimant had already received an enhanced redundancy package, including redundancy pay, pay in lieu of notice and holiday pay, but no compensatory award was made because the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.