Matthew Rohani v Zest Publications Ltd — 2021

The claimant, Matthew Rohani, brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract after being dismissed by Zest Publications Ltd in a redundancy exercise. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, arising in the context of the pandemic and a reduction in work and revenue. It found that the respondent lawfully selected a pool within the Design team, but that the claimant was not told the selection criteria at either consultation meeting and was not given his scores or any meaningful explanation of how he had been assessed.

The tribunal held that this failure was a serious procedural defect. It found that a reasonable employer in the respondent's position would have informed the claimant of the criteria and the gist of how he had been scored, so that he could make representations and correct any misunderstandings. Because that did not happen, and because the appeal stage did not cure the defect, the dismissal was unfair. The tribunal also noted the respondent had acted without prior HR input and in difficult financial circumstances, but said that did not excuse the failure to disclose the criteria.

On Polkey, the tribunal found there was a 70% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It concluded that he had no real prospect of being selected over the two more experienced graphic designers, but he did have some chance of retaining the coordinator role ahead of Joe Akrigg if a fair procedure had been followed. The judgment therefore records that any compensatory award should be reduced by 70%. It also states that the claimant was not entitled to a basic award because of the redundancy payment he received, and that remedy would be dealt with at a later hearing if necessary.

The breach of contract claim failed. The tribunal found as a fact that there was no agreement to pay the claimant a fixed increase of £2,000 when he took on the combined designer and coordinator role. It accepted that the arrangement was for a review of the role and salary, and that the claimant later received a 2.5% increase, amounting to about £600.