In Person For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Stanhope was employed by Magnum Mezzanin Floors Ltd as contracts manager. After the first Covid-19 lockdown, he was furloughed and then told on 28 May 2020 that his post was at risk of redundancy. The tribunal found the respondent's business had genuinely suffered a drop in work and that there was a real redundancy situation within s.139 ERA 1996. The appeal extended the termination date to 30 September 2020, by which time the other furloughed staff had returned to work in or around August.

The tribunal accepted that the redundancy was not a ruse to dismiss the claimant because he had not worked during furlough. However, it found the dismissal unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because the respondent did not keep the decision under review and did not properly consider whether the position should be revisited as trading conditions improved. The termination letter did not engage with the claimant's proposals to delay the decision and use further furlough, and the tribunal held that Mr Dixon's negative view of the claimant's 'enthusiasm' and attitude clouded the decision-making in a way a reasonable employer would have put to one side.

On remedy, the tribunal held that the basic award was fully offset by the redundancy payment of £1,687.50 under s.122(4) ERA 1996, so nothing was payable on that head. It assessed compensatory loss under s.123 ERA 1996 at £6,412.50 before applying a 10% reduction to reflect the low prospect of a different outcome, resulting in an award of £641.25. In reaching that figure, the tribunal disallowed the £8,000 van purchase as capital expenditure, allowed past and future loss of earnings, and included a modest award for loss of statutory rights.