Mr W McVicker v Cineworld Cinemas — 2019

Mr W McVicker was Deputy General Manager of Cineworld's O2 cinema at Greenwich and had been employed since 15 March 2007. Cineworld began a management restructuring in 2017 with stated aims of introducing efficiencies, streamlining procedures, increasing consistency and revising the structure and terms of Deputy General Managers. The tribunal accepted that the restructuring had a sound, good business reason and rejected Mr McVicker's contention that the mobility provision was objectively aimed at forcing him to move from his role.

The tribunal held that Cineworld proved some other substantial reason and that the dismissal was substantively fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses. It found that the key changes applied to the DGM cohort as a whole, including a salary cap at 30,000, a mobility clause, and an 8-day holiday reduction, and noted that only one of the nine affected DGM's did not accept the new terms. Mr McVicker declined to sign the new contract, his notice was given on 24 November 2017, and his employment ended on 24 February 2018.

The claim succeeded because the tribunal found procedural unfairness. It held that the individual consultation stage was ambiguous as to whether terms and conditions could still be negotiated, and that the appeal hearing conducted by Mr Fathi was inadequately prepared and indefensible. Applying Polkey, the tribunal decided that no compensatory award was just and equitable because Mr McVicker had made clear he would not accept a contract containing the mobility clause and dismissal was therefore inevitable unless that provision was withdrawn. The tribunal said he was entitled to a basic award under s.119 ERA 1996, but it could not calculate the amount on the evidence heard and indicated that a remedy hearing would be needed if the parties could not agree.