Ms Sarah Mitchell v Greenyard Fresh Limited — 2021

The tribunal accepted that Greenyard Fresh Limited had a genuine redundancy situation. It found that the respondent had suffered substantial turnover losses and was entitled to restructure the Sales and Sourcing area under section 139 ERA 1996. The claimant did not dispute the business rationale for the restructure or that redundancy was the stated reason for dismissal.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the tribunal found the selection process was not reasonable. Mr Rungay designed and carried out the slotting exercise himself, without applying objective criteria, without considering pooling, and without properly assessing whether the claimant’s role was interchangeable with other Sourcing roles. The tribunal noted that Ms Duda, who had the same job title and job description in Grapes, was slotted into the new structure, while the claimant was not even considered for that role.

The tribunal also found the consultation was not meaningful. Although the claimant was warned about the restructure and invited to meetings, her challenges to the pool, the slotting process, and the lack of criteria were not genuinely addressed. She was told the slotting exercise was not up for debate, and the tribunal found that the respondent gave vague and inconsistent explanations rather than an objective account of how the decision had been made.

Alternative employment was also handled unreasonably. The claimant expressed interest in the Account Executive and Key Account Manager roles, but the respondent unilaterally treated the Account Executive role as unsuitable, did not offer a trial period, and did not actively explore part-time flexibility for a claimant who was working part time. The tribunal noted that the job-share Sourcing Manager role was effectively earmarked for Ms Allen and that the claimant was not given the same practical support or training that was offered to her colleague. The claimant’s dismissal was therefore held to fall outside the range of reasonable responses, and the compensation issue was left for a separate remedy hearing. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn at the hearing and no merits finding was made on it.