Mr G F Dolby v Stuart Plant Ltd — 2018

The Claimant, Mr G F Dolby, was employed by Stuart Plant Limited as Business Development Manager from 4 January 2010 until his dismissal on 2 November 2018. The tribunal accepted that the Respondent’s business had changed so that the requirements for a Business Development Manager had ceased or diminished, and therefore the reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 139(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal did not accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Claimant had been offered the vacant Key Account Manager post in the car park before being dismissed. It found, on the balance of probabilities, that no such offer was made. It also found that the so-called meeting on 2 November 2018 was not a consultation meeting: the Claimant was told out of the blue that he was redundant, asked to hand over his phone and laptop immediately, and was given a dismissal letter saying there was no other job function the company could offer and referring to a clean break.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair. It found there had been no meaningful consultation at all and no consideration of the vacant KAM role as suitable alternative employment. The tribunal rejected the Respondent’s case that the dismissal would have occurred anyway shortly thereafter because of performance or relationship issues.

On compensation, the tribunal accepted the Claimant’s evidence that he was 71 at dismissal, made attempts to find work, took lower-paid work with M&S, later moved to other employment, and then returned to job searching while also dealing with a house move caused by the dismissal. It held that these steps were reasonable mitigation and that the losses from dismissal to December 2020 were attributable to the unfair dismissal. Compensation was capped at the Claimant’s gross annual salary and awarded at £42,000.