Case 2408861/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Williams v In Time Watch Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408861/2021
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Williams was employed by In Time Watch Services Ltd as National Sales Manager. The tribunal found that a genuine redundancy situation existed after COVID-related closures and the loss of Debenhams branches reduced the business from 53 branches to 15 and reduced sales and profits. It found that the respondent no longer required employees to carry out work of the particular kind performed by a National Sales Manager, and that the claimant's role had not subsequently been filled.
The claimant argued that his dismissal was a sham engineered because of his relationship with Mr Pulford. The tribunal rejected that case. It found no evidence that Mr Pulford decided that the claimant had to go or that he influenced the ultimate dismissal decision, and it accepted that two independent decision-makers made the redundancy decision and appeal outcome. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence that it had considered the job specifications and concluded that the National Sales Manager role was materially different from the Area Manager role, including in responsibility, accountability and pay.
On fairness, the tribunal held that the claimant was warned, consulted and offered available alternative employment. It found that the respondent had considered both pooling and bumping, and that the consultation responses addressed the points raised by the claimant, including his argument that he should have been pooled with the Area Managers and his suggestion that another employee should have been bumped. The tribunal also held that the appeal was properly considered by Ms Isemann and that her independence was not compromised by her earlier involvement in the process.
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The claimant's breach of contract and unlawful deductions claims were withdrawn at the outset of the hearing and were dismissed on withdrawal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn at the start of the hearing. The claim was pleaded with unlawful deductions from wages in relation to holiday pay and pension contributions. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Withdrawn at the start of the hearing. The claim was pleaded with breach of contract in relation to holiday pay and pension contributions. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Langston v Cranfield University
- R v British Coal Corporation and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Price
- Taymech Ltd v Ryan
- Hendy Banks City Print Limited v Fairbrother
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.