self-representing (by CVP) For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for redundancy in April 2020 without sufficient warning or consultation, and the respondent conceded that the dismissal was unfair on that basis. The tribunal also found that, when deciding to remove one member of the Wembley sales team, the respondent irrationally failed to consider furlough as an alternative, even though furlough had been used for the Southampton office.

On race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the decision to make the claimant redundant rather than furlough him was irrational, but it did not find that race was the reason. It found that the Southampton staff were placed on furlough at a different stage of the pandemic response and were treated as a discrete group, and that the claimant's selection was considered against other Wembley sales staff who were also of Indian national origin. The tribunal concluded that the respondent's reason was cost saving and its view that only four Wembley sales roles were needed.

For remedy, the tribunal found there was a 20% chance that the claimant would have been fairly selected for redundancy with effect from 1 August 2020, and a 4% deduction for the possibility that he would instead have been on furlough before then. It held that the claimant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate initially, but that his losses should cease at the hearing date because he would probably have obtained equivalent earnings by then had he renewed his search for higher paid work in early 2021. The tribunal also held that £127.54 remained due in commission and that notice pay had been underpaid by £71.50.