Mr Canneaux v Land Science Limited — 2022

Mr Canneaux was employed by Land Science Limited as a Project Manager from February 2016. The tribunal found that the respondent was in financial difficulty and that, in spring 2020, it began preparing to furlough staff. The claimant was asked to work from home from 23 March 2020 and complete certain work before furlough on 10 April 2020. Although the respondent later questioned his homeworking and timesheets, the tribunal accepted that he was working during the disputed period and not treating it as holiday.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy. It accepted that the business had a redundancy situation and that Mr Toms believed it could make do with one fewer Project Manager. However, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because there was no warning of redundancy, no consultation, no opportunity to comment on the selection pool or criteria, no chance to make representations before dismissal, no effort to seek volunteers or alternative employment, and no appeal. The tribunal rejected the argument that the dismissal was fair because consultation would have been futile.

The tribunal also considered the respondent's contention that the claimant would have been dismissed for misconduct anyway. It found that the disciplinary allegations around homeworking and the pressure washer were exaggerated rather than invented, but concluded it was not likely that he would have been dismissed for misconduct at that time. The tribunal nevertheless found a significant chance that, had a fair redundancy process been followed, he could and would have been fairly selected for redundancy. It therefore applied a Polkey reduction of 70% to the compensatory award and made no reduction for contributory conduct to either the basic or compensatory award. Remedy was left to be agreed or determined later, so no final monetary award was recorded in this judgment.