Mr A G D East v Neschen Coating GmbH — 2021

The tribunal accepted that Neschen’s UK and Ireland sales had declined over a number of years, that Mr East’s territory had been reduced in 2019, and that the business was affected by Covid-19 and Brexit. It also noted that Mr East was the only UK-based employee, that consultation took place in August and September 2020, and that the dismissal letter of 7 September 2020 referred to a statutory redundancy payment of £12,902 based on a weekly figure of £538, although no payment was made pending agreement that the dismissal was a redundancy dismissal.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the dismissal was not by reason of redundancy. It found that the operative reason was a redistribution of Mr East’s work to Mr Manteit, who started on 1 November 2020 while Mr East was still employed on garden leave. The tribunal found that the number of people doing sales management work did not reduce, and that Mr Manteit performed the same work as Mr East but with a broader portfolio from the German head office. It therefore concluded that this was a reorganisation rather than a redundancy situation.

The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason and was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that Neschen had a genuine business reason for the change, including declining sales, reduced competitiveness after Brexit, and the need for cost reduction and flexibility. It also held that it was reasonable not to invite Mr East to compete for the role because the work involved wider travel, relocation to Germany, and languages and travel patterns that Mr East had indicated he did not want to undertake. The tribunal found that the lack of an appeal did not make the dismissal unfair in the overall circumstances.

Because there was no redundancy situation, the redundancy payment claim also failed. The tribunal dismissed both claims in full and made no monetary award.