Jon Cook v Q Underwriting Services Ltd (formerly PIB Ltd) and 1 other — 2020

Jon Cook brought an unfair dismissal claim arising from his dismissal as Head of Professions. The claim against Q Underwriting Services Ltd (formerly PIB Ltd) was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing. The remaining claim against PIB (Group Services) Ltd was dismissed in the reserved judgment dated 29 May 2020.

The tribunal found that the respondent’s business model involved acquiring and integrating businesses, and that after the acquisition of Lorica Insurance Brokers Limited the respondent adopted a Lorica-style regional structure. The Board approved the restructure on 24 July 2018. The judge held that Cook’s role as Head of Professions was work of a particular kind, and that the requirement for that work had ceased or diminished because the respondent intended to replace specialist national reporting lines with regional management. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the restructure was a sham or that there was a plan to oust him and replace him with Phil Edwards.

On fairness, the tribunal held that the respondent warned and consulted Cook adequately. He was told on 11 October 2018 that he was at risk of redundancy, received a formal at-risk letter and Q&A material, attended consultation meetings, and had an opportunity to consider vacancies. The tribunal found that placing him in a pool of one was reasonable because his was a unique role. It also held that the timing of the announcement was not unreasonable in light of the summer period and the solicitors’ professional indemnity renewal cycle, and that the appeal process was reasonably fair even though Cook did not attend the appeal hearing.

The tribunal also considered suitable alternative employment. The only role in dispute was Operations Manager (Thistle Underwriting). On the limited evidence before it, the tribunal found that Cook was not suitable for that role, relying in particular on the hiring manager’s reasons that it required operational excellence and proven individual performance management, which were not shown on the evidence. In those circumstances, the tribunal held that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and the unfair dismissal claim against PIB (Group Services) Ltd was dismissed.