Mr N Ray v Honeywell Control Systems Limited — 2025

The tribunal found that the claimant was primarily a direct seller in the Sine business, although he had carried out some channel-side work. The respondent decided to cease direct selling in Sine, and the tribunal accepted that this created a redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996. It found that all three direct sellers were placed at risk, and that Mr McCann was not included because he was a channel salesperson.

On fairness, the tribunal found that the claimant was warned and consulted, understood the redundancy proposal, had access to vacancies, and was supported in seeking alternative roles. It accepted that the respondent did not have to repeat the 2021 process and that the claimant had not been offered the Forge role by Mr Dahms. Taking the process overall, including the appeal, the tribunal found the dismissal was not unfair.

For direct race discrimination, the tribunal considered dismissal, the absence of a QAF, and the Salesforce information. It found that Mr Rubick avoided redundancy because he successfully applied for another role, that Mr McCann received a QAF because his channel role was materially different, and that the Salesforce changes did not show removal of the claimant or a race-related detriment. The tribunal found no prima facie case and, in any event, accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations.

For the Globalworth SIP bonus claim, the tribunal found that the deal was not closed in 2022, that the claimant had only limited involvement in 2023, and that he was not the opportunity leader. It accepted that the 2023 SIP had been changed to cover direct sales or account expansion only, and found the Globalworth deal was neither for these purposes. The unlawful deduction and breach of contract claims therefore failed.