Case 2407976/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Hodgeon v JD Sports Fashion plc HELD AT: Manchester (In Person) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407976/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fearon REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Hodgeon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Hodgeon was employed by JD Sports Fashion Plc from November 2015 and moved in 2019 from the day team to the night team in Customer Care Operations. In spring 2023 the respondent reviewed the night operation, relying on call and workload data, competitor analysis and cost information, and concluded that the 24-hour model was no longer economically viable. The tribunal found that the redundancy proposal was genuine and that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy within section 98(2) ERA 1996.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant was given adequate warning and that both collective and individual consultation took place. She was an employee representative and raised questions about the night team, the spread of work, shift patterns, the redundancy rationale and alternative employment. Although the tribunal noted limited written record-keeping for the individual consultations, it was satisfied that the claimant had sufficient information to understand the proposal and had reasonable opportunity to raise points, with responses provided during the process and in the FAQ material circulated on 2 June 2023.
On selection, the claimant argued that the pool should have included day-shift operations managers as well as her. The tribunal found that the respondent had genuinely applied its mind to the pooling issue, treated the night team as separate from the day teams, and that the chosen pool was within the range of reasonable responses. It also found that the respondent had made reasonable efforts to find suitable alternative employment, including considering the claimant for a Team Leader role, a procurement role, a PA role and an operations manager role in Darby, but she did not accept the day-team role, was unsuccessful for other roles, or declined relocation.
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and was fair. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell
- Murray and another v Foyle Meats Ltd
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey
- Quinton Hazell Ltd v WC Earl
- Moon v Homeworthy Furniture
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.