Case 2301647/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Rayner v ABF The Soldiers’ Charity Heard — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301647/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Rayner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Rayner was employed by ABF The Soldiers' Charity from 15 May 2011 as a Regional Director Fundraising South-East on part-time hours. After earlier reviews of its regional structure, the respondent proposed in 2018 to merge the Home Counties and South-East regions and create a full-time Regional Director post based in Aldershot. The claimant was put at risk of redundancy, consulted on three occasions, dismissed on 20 December 2018, and his appeal was heard and rejected on 11 February 2019.
The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 139(1)(b)(ii) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, namely a diminution in the requirement for a Regional Director working in Chatham. It accepted that the restructuring had a business rationale and that the Board of Trustees had driven the change. Although the tribunal considered the evidence of friction between the claimant and Martin Rutledge, it did not accept that animosity was the real reason for dismissal.
On fairness, the tribunal concluded that the consultation and redundancy process stayed within the band of reasonable responses. It found that Robin Bacon's consultation was not simply the communication of a pre-determined outcome and that the claimant was given the opportunity to comment on the restructure and on possible alternatives. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent was entitled to treat the full-time Aldershot fundraising role as not suitable alternative employment for the claimant, particularly because he showed no real interest in it and did not demonstrate the skills or qualifications needed for that specialist post.
The part-time worker claim also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably on the ground that he was part-time; rather, he was dismissed because the respondent no longer required a Regional Director working in Chatham and because he was not interested in the new role. Both claims were therefore dismissed and no remedy arose.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the dismissal was fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably because he was a part-time worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1)(b)(ii) ERA 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Virgin Media Ltd v Seddington and Eland
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.