In person but assisted by Miss S Rasheva (his partner). For the v Miss R Page, from Law at Work. — 2022

The tribunal found that a genuine redundancy situation arose after the hotel was affected by the pandemic and moved into the Interstate portfolio. It accepted that the business lost £411,000 in 2020, that finance support could be centralised through Interstate in Glasgow, and that the Claimant’s role as finance manager was therefore placed at risk. The consultation process ran through meetings on 9 October, 15 October, 6 November and 24 November 2020, with the Claimant also being told about alternative opportunities including the part-time finance assistant role, the Galley Host role, and external vacancies within the Interstate group.

The tribunal rejected the Claimant’s case that the dismissal was really because of his disputes with Mr Moura or because he had raised workplace issues. It found that the redundancy was the reason for dismissal and that the surrounding complaints had mostly been raised in the summer of 2020, with no formal grievance shown before the redundancy process began. It also found insufficient evidence that the matters relied on amounted to protected disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996, and held that the dismissal was not a detriment caused by any such disclosure.

On fairness, the tribunal held that the employer acted reasonably under section 98 ERA 1996. It found that the warning period and consultation were adequate, that the finance department could fairly be treated as a pool of two, that the Claimant was shown the restructuring slides at the first consultation meeting, and that the cost comparison document was shown at the third consultation meeting. The tribunal accepted that the Claimant’s proposal for a 10% wage cut and his request for furlough were considered and rejected, that the note-taking process did not make the consultation unfair, and that any earlier flaws were cured by the appeal conducted by Mr McAllister. It therefore held that the Claimant was fairly dismissed on the grounds of redundancy and dismissed the claim.