Ms N Hamilton Watson v Countrywide Estate Agents Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that the respondent had established a genuine redundancy situation: the sales administrator hub was to be closed and the number of roles reduced from four to three. It accepted that the claimant had struggled in the role and that the respondent had concerns about workload, performance and speed, but those matters did not by themselves make the dismissal fair.

The dismissal was held unfair because the consultation process was not genuine and the selection exercise was not properly explained. The tribunal found that the decision to remove the hub was effectively a foregone conclusion, that the claimant was not properly told when consultation would take place, and that the criteria used to select between the remaining administrators were never clearly communicated. It described the selection process as difficult to scrutinise and said the claimant was not given a proper opportunity to understand the case against her or make meaningful representations.

The tribunal also considered alternative employment. It found that a lettings coordinator vacancy had been explored and that Ms Oates reasonably concluded the claimant would not effectively undertake that role, although there had been poor communication because the claimant was not told the outcome promptly. The appeal process was criticised because the appeal outcome was sent to Ms Ogden Duffy for approval, but the tribunal did not find that this affected the substance of the appeal decision.

On future loss, the tribunal found there was an 85% chance that the claimant would have been fairly selected for redundancy even if a fair process had been followed, because the closure of the hub and reduction in posts was unlikely to change and the other two administrators had substantially greater experience. It therefore recorded that any compensation would be reduced by 85% and listed the matter for a later remedy hearing.