Liam Pike (solicitor) For the v Jennifer Platt (solicitor) — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent from 10 November 2015 to 2 August 2020, with roles described over time as Sales Administrator, Hire and Sales Controller and Sales Coordinator. The tribunal accepted that there was a redundancy situation within s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996 because orders had reduced and increased use of a computerised system meant the respondent no longer needed a dedicated Sales Coordinator. It also found that the sole reason for dismissal was redundancy rather than a personal issue.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent failed to apply its mind properly to the pooling exercise. Although the claimant was treated as being in a pool of one, the evidence showed that the Sales, Hire and Service coordinator roles were broadly similar and that staff had covered each other’s work. The tribunal found that the claimant should at least have been pooled with the Hire Coordinator, and that a wider pool of all three coordinators would also have been within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal also found consultation to be inadequate because the claimant was not told that she had been placed in a pool of one and the process concentrated on finding alternative vacancies rather than avoiding redundancy. The claimant proposed reduced hours across the departments and maternity cover for the Hire Coordinator, but those options were rejected without real explanation. The vacancy-scoring process for other group roles was not found to be unreasonable. The tribunal therefore upheld unfair dismissal, but reserved Polkey and compensation issues to a later remedy hearing. Separately, the respondent conceded the redundancy payment shortfall of £109.32, and judgment was entered for that amount.