Case 3307956/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Nicholls, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307956/2020
- Decision date
- 23 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms G Nicholls, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Stroud had been employed by Mitie from 7 January 2002 and was a Quality Lead in the QHSE team. The tribunal accepted the respondent's case that there was a genuine redundancy situation within its Project 2025 transformation programme, with a reduction of one Quality Lead role, and it rejected the suggestion that the redundancy was created on the instruction of Mr Aloni or that the earlier performance management steps were a device to engineer dismissal.
The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted that the claimant was warned of the redundancy on 4 March 2020, but found that consultation was perfunctory, with no meaningful discussion of the scoring matrices or the claimant's questions raised on 18 March 2020. It also found that the respondent did not give her a proper opportunity to discuss the scores face to face or by Teams, and that the alternative employment exercise was also perfunctory.
On selection, the tribunal accepted the pool of four Quality Leads and the objective nature of the criteria, and it considered the use of one consistent scorer across the four assessments to be within the range of reasonable responses. However, it held that the criteria were not fairly applied to the claimant because the letter of concern and performance improvement plan were not disciplinary sanctions, so it was not reasonable to mark her down on disciplinary record in that way, and the same underlying issues were also taken into account under audit performance and management. The appeal was found to be perfunctory and not based on a fair investigation.
On Polkey, the tribunal rejected both parties' extremes and held that there remained a 25% chance the claimant would have been dismissed in any event. For remedy, it found that the statutory redundancy payment of £10,237.50 extinguished the basic award. It calculated a loss period of 48 weeks, using net weekly pay of £827.43 and benefits of £312.23, with loss of statutory rights of £500, deducted Jobseeker's Allowance of £1,933.10, and then applied the 25% Polkey reduction and tax gross-up. The judgment records a compensatory award of £46,933.64, with £45,000.54 as the final award to the claimant and £1,933.10 to be recouped to the DWP.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was redundancy arising from the respondent's Project 2025 transformation programme, but held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It found that consultation was perfunctory, the claimant was not given meaningful consultation on the scoring matrices or process, the letter of concern and performance improvement plan were not disciplinary sanctions, and the alternative employment search was inadequate. A 25% Polkey deduction was applied. | Upheld | — | £46,934 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £46,934
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £46,934
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.139(1) ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Limited
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle
- band of reasonable responses
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.