Miss Chetna Patel v Hive Education Trust — 2021

The tribunal substituted Hive Education Trust as the correct respondent and dismissed Miss Patel’s claim of unfair dismissal. The Claimant accepted, and the tribunal agreed, that the reason for dismissal was redundancy and that the redundancy was genuine. The tribunal also accepted that she had been warned of the redundancy situation. The Respondent had identified an early 2019 budget forecast showing projected deficits of just over £400,000 for 2019/2020 and just under £600,000 for 2020/2021, and decided on a restructure replacing seven full-time Director posts with five Assistant Head Teacher roles, with the Director of Timetabling excluded because it was a specialist part-time role.

The tribunal found that the Respondent carried out meaningful consultation, both collectively with recognised unions and individually with the Claimant. It accepted that the selection process was explained as interview-based, that the Claimant and other Directors were given the same information, and that the absence of a scoring matrix did not make the process unfair. It held that the selection pool was reasonable, including all Directors except the Director of Timetabling, and that it was reasonable to use a competency-based interview for the new roles because they were new posts requiring higher-level leadership skills. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the process was biased or that the Claimant was selected because she was the highest paid candidate.

On suitable alternative employment, the tribunal accepted the Respondent’s evidence that two science teacher posts had to be recruited when they were advertised, that the Head of Year 13 role was ringfenced as part of a separate restructure, and that the Operations Manager role did not have to be treated as a teaching role to preserve the Claimant’s benefits. It also found that the Head of Science role was not a standalone post but an addition to an existing teaching role. The appeal was found to be adequate despite the appeal letter not giving reasons, because the Claimant was able to present her case, the panel questioned the issues raised, and the overall fairness of the process was not affected. Applying the redundancy fairness authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal fell within the range of conduct a reasonable employer could adopt and was fair. It also recorded that the ACAS Code did not apply to this redundancy dismissal.