Mr Stanley Horner v City Response Ltd — 2020

Mr Stanley Horner was employed by City Response Ltd from 18 October 2010 until his dismissal on 10 February 2020. The dispute arose after a business reorganisation and harmonisation of terms and conditions. The claimant refused to sign the new contract because he said the fixed start and finish times did not accord with his understanding of working time for a mobile worker and were unlawful under the Working Time Regulations 1998.

The tribunal found that redundancy was not the reason for dismissal. Although there was a genuine redundancy situation within the wider restructuring, the termination letter showed that the claimant was dismissed because he was unwilling to agree the new terms and conditions. The tribunal accepted, however, that there was a sound and good business reason for the reorganisation and contract changes, so the case fell within some other substantial reason under section 98(1)(b) ERA 1996.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient for dismissal. It relied on the extent of the collective and individual consultation, the grievance and appeal processes, the repeated explanations about the distinction between working time under the WTR and contractual pay, and the evidence that the new automated system required harmonised terms. It also noted that almost all other employees accepted the new contract. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and the remedy hearing was not required.