In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal found that the respondent had established a genuine redundancy situation. It accepted that the Covid-19 pandemic caused a significant reduction in business, with contracts falling from 115 sites before 23 March 2020 to zero within weeks, most staff placed on furlough, and turnover reduced from £5,457,184 in 2019 to £2,714,399 in 2020 at best. The claimant’s role as Site Cover Coordinator was found to be centred on organising cover across 85 sites nationally, which the tribunal held had been materially reduced by the loss of work and the introduction of the PARiM scheduling software.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that redundancy was a pretext for dismissal because of a difficult working relationship with Mr Matthew Hazelden. It found her allegations of bullying vague and unparticularised, noted that she had not raised any grievance during employment, and accepted the respondent’s evidence and correspondence as showing a consistent redundancy process from July to November 2020. It also accepted that the claimant had been told her position was at risk from 30 September 2020 at the latest.

On the structure of the reorganisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant’s former role was not simply being continued under a new name. It found there was a significant change in emphasis to a regional manager role, with more on-site cover and managerial responsibility, and that the respondent intended to move from permanent cover staff to an ad hoc system. The tribunal also found that the respondent had fairly offered the claimant the opportunity to apply for one of the new RCM roles and had extended the deadline for her application, but she chose not to apply.

Applying section 98 and section 139 ERA 1996, and referring to Langston v Cranfield University, Williams v Compare Maxam Limited, and Morgan v The Welsh Rugby Union, the tribunal concluded that the redundancy dismissal was genuine and that the respondent acted reasonably in consultation, selection, and consideration of alternative employment. It held that the claimant was fairly dismissed and dismissed the claim.