In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked as a Sales Engineer at the respondent's Cambridge branch from 1 November 2000. The tribunal found that sales and profitability at the site had declined over several years and that the Covid-19 lockdown from 23 March 2020 caused a substantial further adverse impact on the respondent's business. The respondent decided that the Cambridge sales team no longer required three Sales Engineers and invited volunteers for redundancy; Mr Carter volunteered, leaving the claimant and Mr Jenkins in the compulsory selection pool.

The tribunal found that the redundancy process was fair. The claimant was notified that he was at risk on 5 June 2020, consulted on 12 June 2020, and told that there were no alternative vacancies and a recruitment freeze was in place. The initial scoring exercise selected Mr Jenkins over the claimant, and the tribunal rejected the claimant's allegation that the scores were manufactured or that there was any ulterior motive. On appeal, Mr Brant arranged a re-scoring by Ms Smith and Mr Chapman using six objective criteria; the tribunal accepted that they had day-to-day knowledge of the work and that the re-scoring was appropriate. The claimant again scored below Mr Jenkins, mainly on general performance, qualifications and transferable skills.

Applying the redundancy principles in Williams and Ors v Compair Maxam Limited and the statutory fairness provisions, the tribunal held that the respondent had reasonably reduced headcount, used a reasonable selection pool, consulted meaningfully, considered suitable alternative employment and applied objective criteria fairly. It accepted that the reason for dismissal was redundancy and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

For the age discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Brant and Ms Smith that age was not considered at any stage. It rejected the claimant's case that the respondent preferred a younger employee. The tribunal therefore dismissed the age discrimination claim. The breach of contract claim was withdrawn after the claimant accepted that clause 11 of his contract excluded any bonus entitlement if he left before the end of the financial year, and no monetary award was made.