Miss B Samuel v Citizens Advice Merton & Lambeth — 2021

Miss B Samuel worked for Citizens Advice Merton & Lambeth from 8 March 2008 until her dismissal for redundancy, with an effective date of termination of 4 October 2018. The respondent had received an unexpected Employment Tribunal remedy judgment of £165,000 on 19 February 2018, about £80,000 more than it had budgeted for, and the tribunal accepted that the charity's reserves were low and that this created a financial pressure that led to a revised budget and restructuring proposals.

The tribunal found that there was a genuine redundancy situation and that redundancy was the real reason for dismissal. It accepted that the restructuring reduced the need for IGOM work, including by closing two offices to new clients on Fridays, and that the respondent engaged in lengthy consultation with staff and Unite about alternatives such as a pay cut, reduced hours, using reserves, or other restructuring options. The Claimant was in a pool of three IGOMs, her selection criteria were adjusted at her request, and she remained the lowest-scoring candidate. The tribunal held that the selection process was fair and objective, and that the respondent took reasonable steps to avoid redundancy, including by considering redeployment; it rejected the suggestion that training her as an adviser was a realistic option.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal held that the 30 May 2018 remark about an earlier tribunal claimant allegedly offering to settle for £65,000 was not a qualifying disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996 because no relevant legal obligation was identified and no reasonable belief in breach was shown. It also found no evidence that the dismissal was motivated by that conversation. On the trade union complaints, the tribunal found no evidence of hostility to Unite or of a dismissal reason connected to union activity, and noted that the respondent would have avoided redundancy if the Claimant had accepted a four-day week.

The race discrimination and victimisation claims also failed. The tribunal did not find facts from which it could conclude that Mr Bradley or Ms Hudson acted because of race, and it considered the complaints about earlier treatment and about black volunteers insufficient. The protected act alleged on 4 June 2018 was accepted for the victimisation claim, but the tribunal found no causal link between that complaint and the redundancy selection or dismissal. The age and sex discrimination complaints were withdrawn in closing submissions.