Mr A R Woolf v GFS Fresh Ltd — 2023

The claimant was employed by GFS Fresh Ltd from February 2017 and was told on 31 January 2022 that he was being made redundant, with termination taking effect on 30 April 2022. His original claim included unfair dismissal, age discrimination and breach of contract, but the age discrimination and breach of contract claims were withdrawn at a preliminary hearing on 30 November 2022, leaving only unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy for final determination.

The tribunal accepted that there was a genuine redundancy situation. It found the respondent, a small business, had experienced financial pressure, contract losses, litigation and related pressures, and the liquidation of HK Packaging Ltd. It also accepted the respondent's explanation for the delay between the initial consultation in June 2021 and the redundancy letter in January 2022, but it did not accept that there had been any meaningful further consultation in that period. The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on two self-employed contractors, finding they were not doing comparable work and were not relevant to the redundancy situation.

The dismissal was nevertheless held to be unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal found the respondent did not adequately warn and consult the claimant, did not explain the later restructure or the selection criteria, moved him from a pool of four to a pool of one without consultation, used no scoring matrix, and did not take reasonable steps to identify suitable alternative employment. The appeal process was also found to be unfair apart from the practical management of the hearing and timetabling.

On remedy, the tribunal found the claimant had already been paid the correct statutory redundancy entitlement and therefore was not entitled to a basic award. Applying Polkey, it found there was a 75% chance he would have been fairly dismissed in any event because the restructure moved the business to procurement pods managed by traders and sales staff, and his role was materially different from the retained employees. Any compensatory award was to be reduced by 75%, and the matter was listed for a separate remedy hearing, so no final total was determined in this judgment.