Case 2503628/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Young v Ground Work North East Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503628/2018
- Decision date
- 14 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs T Young was employed by Ground Work North East Limited as a Senior Youth Worker on a fixed-term contract, and later also worked as a Young Persons Training Officer on a further fixed-term basis. The tribunal found that the respondent’s YEI-funded work was coming to an end in July 2018, that revised funding arrangements required a new staffing structure, and that the claimant’s work was primarily funded by the YEI contract even though she also worked on Talent Match. On that basis, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 139(1)(b)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent warned and consulted the claimant about redundancy, beginning with the 15 June 2018 letter and continuing at meetings on 20 June, 6 July and 11 July 2018. It found that the respondent used a reasonable pool of 20 YEI-funded roles, did not need to include other staff in different roles and funding streams, and that the claimant was fairly allowed to apply for posts in the new structure. The tribunal also accepted that the interview process for Youth Coach roles was conducted in good faith, with identical questions asked of all candidates and scores moderated by the panel.
The claimant’s score of 46 was below the range of successful candidates, so she did not secure a Youth Coach role. The tribunal accepted evidence that there were no suitable alternative vacancies at the relevant time, that a later Work Experience Coordinator role was identified but not taken up by the claimant, and that two roles identified after dismissal were dependent on new external grant funding and were not available during the redundancy process. It therefore concluded that the respondent acted reasonably under section 98(4) ERA 1996 and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996 dismissed. The reasons contain one reference to '2 August 2019' in the timesheet discussion, but the dismissal date is otherwise consistently treated as 2 August 2018. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1)(b)(i) ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Iceland Frozen Foods
- Williams v Compair Maxam Limited
- Taymech Limited v Ryan
- Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard
- Morgan v Welsh Rugby Union
- British Aerospace plc v Green
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.