Mr John Richard Bell v William Lacey Group Limited — 2022

Mr John Richard Bell was employed by William Lacey Group Limited as Head of Design/Director. The tribunal found that by 2020 the respondent was facing reduced profitability, significant losses and a diminished pipeline of work, and that redundancies were discussed from March 2020. The claimant was informed on 2 October 2020 that his post was at risk, consulted in writing and at meetings in October and November 2020, and dismissed for redundancy on 20 November 2020. An appeal by an external HR consultant, Mrs Michaela Gartside, was partially upheld in relation to process, but the dismissal decision was allowed to stand.

On the reason for dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had proved redundancy within s.139 ERA 1996. It accepted that the requirement for employees to carry out the kind of work done by the claimant had diminished, and was expected further to diminish, because of reduced work in the pipeline and a strategic shift towards the land side of the business. The tribunal accepted Mr Lacey's evidence that the claimant's role was primarily associated with construction/design work and that the overlap with the freelance land manager role held by Mr Turner was limited.

On fairness under s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses. It found that the claimant was warned and consulted, was able to make representations, and was given the opportunity to suggest alternatives, including reduced hours and other possible work. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had already taken other cost-saving measures such as furlough, reduced salaries and reduced hours before dismissals were implemented, and concluded that there was no realistic alternative to redundancy.

The tribunal also considered the process as a whole, including the appeal. It accepted that the second meeting was more a communication of a decision already reached than a further consultation, but found that the decision had been taken after sufficient consultation and that the appeal process conducted by Mrs Gartside was proportionate and fair. Because the dismissal was found to be fair, the tribunal did not need to determine any Polkey reduction. As a result, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and no award was made.