Ms M Dabrowska v V-Tech Ltd — 2023

The tribunal found that the Respondent had established a redundancy situation within the meaning of s.139 ERA 1996. It accepted evidence that, following the impact of Covid on the business, the managing director changed how the business was run, recruited an executive assistant in September 2020 and later recruited a Head of Operations in September 2021 to introduce efficiencies and automation. The tribunal accepted that some of the Claimant’s work had been redistributed and automated, and that on her return from furlough she was struggling to find sufficient work, but it did not accept that the executive assistant had simply replaced her role.

The tribunal found that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was redundancy and that the Claimant was dismissed because the requirement for an operations manager had diminished, not because of conduct or performance issues. It applied the statutory test in s.98 ERA 1996 and the redundancy authorities cited in the judgment, including Burrell, and concluded that the Respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable information that redundancy was the correct reason.

On fairness under s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It accepted that the Claimant had been told her role was at risk on 19 April 2022, that consultation followed, that she was invited to propose alternatives, that she attended meetings with her union representative, and that she was offered an alternative role which was not suitable because it was a demotion on lower pay. Although the appeal process was not ideal, because it was heard by Mr Coyle despite his involvement in the automation changes, the tribunal held that this did not make the overall process unfair. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.