(1) Mrs Catriona Stevenson (2) Mrs Cathrona Leeke (3) Mrs Sarah Stewart v Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust — 2019

The tribunal found that Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust was restructuring its HR functions across three Trusts and that the claimants, all Heads of HR at Broomfield Hospital, were consulted during a phased process in July to September 2017. It rejected the claimants' case that the consultation was a sham, finding that the Trust had carried out collective and individual consultation, had ringfenced interviews for the claimants, and had lifted the embargo on re-banding their posts during the process. The tribunal also found that the later Senior HR Lead role was a genuine role created to retain the claimants' skills and to avoid unnecessary redundancy payments.

On the redundancy payment and breach of contract issues, the tribunal held that the Senior HR Lead role was suitable alternative employment: it was on the same grade, pay, location and hours as the claimants' previous roles. It found that each claimant unreasonably refused that alternative work. The tribunal considered that their objections were driven in part by mistrust of Ms Foulkes, concerns about status, and the fact that Mrs Stevenson and Mrs Stewart had already accepted outside employment, while Mrs Leeke aligned herself with them. As a result, all contractual and statutory redundancy payment claims were dismissed.

The unfair dismissal claims of Mrs Stevenson and Mrs Stewart were also dismissed. The tribunal held that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal, that the consultation and appeal process were fair overall, and that the respondents had acted reasonably in all the circumstances. It noted that the claimants had not properly engaged with the consultation, that the Senior HR Lead role was suitable, and that the later interim Head of HR role did not make their dismissals unfair in light of their refusal of suitable alternative work.

Mrs Leeke's unfair dismissal claim succeeded on a narrower procedural basis. The tribunal found that the interim Head of HR role, authorised on 27 November 2017, should have been specifically offered to her before dismissal. It held, however, that there was a 50% chance she would have refused that role even if it had been offered, and it assessed her conduct as contributing 50% to the dismissal because she refused the Senior HR Lead role and did not undertake a trial period. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later hearing on 1 and 2 August 2019.