Siohbán O’Neill Worth v Thames Water Utilities Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that the respondent's reorganisation removed the claimant's original role and that, in substance, she was part of a redundancy process. It rejected the respondent's case that she had been validly "job matched" out of redundancy. The tribunal found there was no proper documented job-match process, that the claimant's role had been abolished, and that the new IBP role was allocated to her as part of the redundancy exercise.

The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a statutory trial period in the new role. It held that September 2019 was not such a trial period because, in practice, nothing had changed and she continued doing her old work. The tribunal found that the respondent later reversed the offered trial period and substituted a "settling in period", which it treated as a policy reversal rather than mere clarification.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent fundamentally breached contract by failing to offer the required statutory trial period, by resiling from the accepted offer of a trial period, and by taking eight months to resolve the issues raised. It found that the claimant resigned in response to those breaches, without affirming the contract, and was therefore constructively unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. It also held that she was entitled to 12 weeks' notice pay, with remedy issues to be determined at a later hearing.