Mrs C McGuire v South Liverpool Homes Ltd — 2020

Mrs C McGuire brought a single claim of unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against South Liverpool Homes Ltd. The tribunal found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy: it accepted that Miss Ryan and Mrs Fadden genuinely believed in November 2017 that the claimant’s role of Head of Community Services and New Initiatives was viable, and that after the GUVH project stalled in late 2018 they concluded the role was no longer needed. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the redundancy process was a sham or that the dismissal was driven by nepotism.

The tribunal held that it was reasonably open to the respondent to treat the claimant as a pool of one, and it did not criticise Mrs Fadden’s involvement in the appeal. It also accepted that the respondent was not acting unfairly merely because it continued consultation while the claimant was on sick leave, given that she was offered opportunities to make written submissions. However, the tribunal found that the information given to the claimant was inadequate. The stated reasons for deleting her role were described as illogical and misleading, and the respondent changed the proposed restructure without explaining why it had changed.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the redundancy fairness authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded that the inadequate information meant the claimant did not have a proper opportunity to respond and the consultation was unfair. The tribunal therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim. On causation and remedy, it held on a Polkey basis that if the respondent had acted fairly the claimant would have been dismissed four weeks later in any event, and there was no significant chance that she would have remained employed after that further period. The judgment is therefore liability only, with remedy to be dealt with separately.