Mr K Hoyle Mr KJ Cummins Mr SD Powell v Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited — 2023

The three claimants were employed in the respondent's CCTV team at Holland Rise. The tribunal found that from late 2019 the respondent reviewed the CCTV service because the Rochdale Borough Council contract was due to end in June 2020 and parts of the respondent's estates, including College Bank and Lower Falinge, were planned for demolition. The respondent proposed a restructured service based around Community Guardian roles, consulted with the claimants and the union consultees, and on 30 November 2020 the claimants' employment ended when none of them took up the alternative roles.

The tribunal held that the dismissals were by reason of redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996. It accepted Ms Robinson's evidence that active CCTV monitoring did not continue after the restructure, that the room shown in the photograph was used to download and review footage rather than to monitor live cameras, and that the new Community Guardian role was materially different from the former CCTV operative roles. The concierge element that remained was found to be only a minor part of the new role, and the tribunal rejected the suggestion that agency staff were being used in the sense alleged by the claimants.

On procedure, the tribunal found that the respondent gave adequate warning, consulted extensively, and responded to employee and union feedback throughout the process. It noted the 11-month period between the first notice of the change and dismissal, the ringfenced Community Guardian roles, the 12-week trial period, pay protection, training support, and the individual redeployment meetings. Applying the redundancy and fairness authorities it cited, including section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal concluded that the dismissals were fair and all three unfair dismissal complaints were dismissed. The hearing dealt only with liability, so no remedy was determined.