Mr Marc Ramsden v Maldon District Council — 2021

Mr Marc Ramsden was employed by Maldon District Council in its Parks Team from November 2016 until his dismissal on 5 June 2019. The Council relied on redundancy following a restructure of the Parks Team, but the tribunal accepted only that there had been a limited reduction in requirement from 11 to 10.7 FTE posts. It found that the Claimant’s dismissal was not in fact caused by that redundancy situation, but by a competency-based interview process in which three staff members were identified as not being offered roles.

The tribunal held that the process was flawed in several respects. The Claimant was mistakenly interviewed for a level 3 role and therefore faced more difficult questions than he should have done. Mr Wilson sat on the interview panel despite the Claimant having a live grievance against him, and the tribunal found that although no deliberate score manipulation was shown, Mr Wilson’s presence affected the Claimant’s ability to perform. The tribunal also found that the panel used a subjective impression of interview performance to set the pass mark and the number of posts to be cut, rather than applying objective selection criteria to decide which employees could not be accommodated in the new structure.

The tribunal further held that the Council failed to make reasonable efforts to find suitable alternative employment. It found that Parks Team staff without practical intranet access were disadvantaged in seeing vacancies, that the Claimant was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice, and that the two permanent full-time level 1 Parks & Countryside Officer roles advertised in June 2019 were in all practical respects identical to the Claimant’s existing job. It also said the fixed-term Highway Ranger role was not considered as a possible alternative employment opportunity.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded the dismissal was unfair. It also carried out a Polkey assessment and held that, if a fair process had been followed, there was a 50% chance the Claimant would still have been fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The Claimant had initially referred to victimisation and whistleblowing in the background to the case, but he did not pursue an amended victimisation claim, and the tribunal determined only the unfair dismissal claim.