Mr Trevor Hampson v MAN Energy Solutions UK Limited — 2022

Mr Trevor Hampson was employed as a Supplier Quality Auditor from 14 August 2017 until his dismissal following a redundancy process in 2020. The respondent said its business had been hit by reduced demand for diesel engines and turbo machinery, loss of East Midlands Trains and MOD work, and the effects of COVID-19. The claimant argued that the redundancy process was unfair because an unfinished disciplinary process, including earlier disagreement about COVID workplace measures, meant the decision-makers were not impartial.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996 and that the principal reason for dismissal was potentially fair. It accepted that the claimant was warned, consulted and scored within a pool of three employees, and that the scoring exercise was carried out by four managers to add rigour. The claimant received the lowest score, 27, compared with 37 and 35 for the other two employees in the pool. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the unfinished disciplinary matter tainted the redundancy process, noting that the claimant received the full disciplinary score and that there was no reliable evidence of bias against him.

The tribunal also found that the internal appeal was handled independently by Ms Louise Durose, who increased the claimant’s score by one point under two headings but concluded that he still remained the lowest scorer. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that no suitable alternative employment was available, including its decision to retain Mr Ellis because of his long service and skills, and found that the organogram reference relied on by the claimant did not identify an actual vacancy. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that dismissal by reason of redundancy was fair and therefore did not need to determine Polkey further.

The separate claim for outstanding holiday pay was dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant’s March 2020 self-isolation period following his holiday had already been treated as holiday and that he was paid for the remaining days together with his redundancy package. No award was made on either claim.