In person For the v Mr L Godfrey — 2019

The claimant, Miss Giedre Dian, brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from her dismissal by reason of redundancy on 25 September 2017. Employment Judge Siddall found that the respondent, Sussex Community Development Association Limited, had experienced a significant deficit across its three day-care centres and that cost savings were required. The tribunal accepted that the decision to remove the Activities Development Worker post at the Phoenix Centre formed part of a genuine redundancy situation.

The tribunal found that the claimant was consulted over the proposed removal of her role at meetings on 20 June, 27 June, 11 July and 3 August 2017, with the redundancy proposal confirmed in writing and alternatives invited. It accepted that the senior management team considered the staff proposals and concluded that they would not achieve the required savings. The tribunal also found that the claimant was given the opportunity to apply for alternative vacancies, including Advice and Information Services Team Leader, Volunteer Co-ordinator, and later the combined Receptionist/Project Assistant role, but either did not apply or was not appointed.

Applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances. It rejected the claimant’s argument that she should have been placed in a wider pool, finding that her role was unique and that no selection exercise arose. It also rejected the suggestion that the respondent acted unreasonably by not postponing the outcome meeting until September or by not offering suitable alternative employment without interview. The tribunal referred to Williams v Compair Maxim Ltd and Morgan v Welsh Rugby Union in its reasoning, and concluded that the redundancy process was reasonable overall. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed and no monetary award was made.