Mr R Sergent v Motus Group (UK) Ltd t/a Pentagon Group — 2021

Mr Sergent had worked for the respondent for over 24 years, most recently as Used Car Sales Controller at Warrington. The respondent introduced a redundancy programme in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and decided that the Warrington Used Car Sales Controller role was surplus to requirements because of reduced volume and a reorganisation of the used car business. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 98 and section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was warned and consulted through three telephone meetings in May and June 2020, even though the consultation lasted 12 days rather than the 14 days stated in the respondent’s policy. It found that the consultation was fair, genuine and meaningful in the circumstances, and that the fact that it was conducted by telephone during the pandemic did not make the dismissal unfair. The tribunal also held that Warrington was a separate establishment for these purposes, so the claimant’s argument that consultation should have been assessed by reference to company-wide redundancies did not succeed.

On selection and pools, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely considered the issue and was entitled to treat the claimant’s Warrington role as a unique role at risk, rather than pooling it with other Used Car or New Car Sales Controller roles or with other sites. On alternative employment, the tribunal accepted that the respondent gave the claimant a list of vacancies during consultation, but noted that it did not proactively raise two later vacancies arising during his notice period. Even so, the tribunal found that this did not render the dismissal unfair because the claimant was aware of those vacancies, did not apply for them, and was not suitable for the Business Centre Manager role in Warrington in any event.

The tribunal therefore held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and was fair in all the circumstances. Because the unfair dismissal claim failed, there was no compensation award. The tribunal also recorded that, even if the late-appearing vacancies had made the dismissal unfair, it would have found that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and it held that the ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures did not apply to redundancy dismissals.