Janice Barlow v Horwich Farrelly Solicitors — 2020

Janice Barlow had worked for Horwich Farrelly since 1987 and, by the time of her dismissal on 6 September 2019, was employed as a Client Relationships and Development Co-ordinator in Zest Legal. The tribunal found that Zest Legal was in run-off and that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. The claimant accepted that there was a redundancy situation and that redundancy was the reason for dismissal; the dispute was whether the dismissal was fair, particularly in relation to the selection pool and the absence of bumping.

The claimant argued that she should have been placed in a pool with other PAs across the firm because their skill sets were broadly similar and interchangeable. She said the respondent had acted unfairly by treating her as a pool of one and by not considering whether another PA could be bumped to keep her in employment. The tribunal recorded that the respondent considered the point, took HR and legal advice, and concluded that widening the pool would risk displacing other PAs in different departments who were not otherwise at risk.

Applying the range of reasonable responses approach under s.98(4) ERA 1996, and referring to authorities including Foley v Post Office, Midland Bank v Madden, Hendy Banks City Print Ltd v Fairbrother, Taymech v Ryan, Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard, Halpin v Sandpiper Books Ltd, Wrexham Golf Club v Ingham, Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd, Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, Lionel Leventhal Ltd v North, Stroud RFC v Monkman, Byrne v Arwin Meritor LUS (UK) Ltd and Samuels v University of the Creative Arts, the tribunal held that the respondent had genuinely addressed the pooling and bumping issue. It found that there was no legal requirement that the pool consist only of employees doing similar work, and no absolute obligation to consider bumping.

The tribunal accepted that the PA roles had some common features and that the claimant could probably have acquired the knowledge needed for another department with training and time. Even so, it held that the respondent's decision not to widen the pool was within the band of reasonable responses open to it. The appeal was dealt with on paper and without a hearing, but the tribunal found that this did not render the dismissal unfair, especially as the claimant had not requested a hearing and had not identified pool or bumping as a ground of appeal. The claim was therefore dismissed.