Mr G Lovell v Peratech Holdco Limited — 2021

Mr Lovell was employed by Peratech from 3 November 2014 until 31 July 2020. The tribunal found that he had been promoted to Senior Prototype Production Technician, while Mr Andrew Purdie held the more junior Prototype Production Technician role. It accepted Peratech's evidence that the business had suffered a substantial loss of expected revenue during the Covid period, that work was shifting to China, and that the company needed to change its structure to remain competitive.

The tribunal found that Peratech genuinely considered redundancy for the Senior Prototype Technician role, and that the role's work had ceased or diminished in the UK. It accepted that Peratech considered whether Mr Lovell should be placed in a selection pool with Mr Purdie, but concluded that the roles were different in title, duties, seniority and remuneration. On that basis, it held that a pool of one was within the range of reasonable responses.

Mr Lovell raised bumping during consultation, suggesting that a more junior employee should be dismissed instead. The tribunal found that Peratech considered that point, but decided against it because the junior role was materially different and the company did not consider it appropriate to displace another employee in those circumstances. It also found that Peratech undertook consultation on 22, 27 and 31 July 2020, considered alternative roles, and allowed an appeal on 12 August 2020.

Applying sections 98(1), 98(2) and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the redundancy definition in section 139 and the relevant pooling and bumping authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal concluded that the operative reason for dismissal was redundancy and that Peratech had acted reasonably in the circumstances. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made.