Mr D Hulme v Rustins Limited — 2022

The tribunal found that Mr Hulme was dismissed because of redundancy arising from changes in consumer behaviour during the Covid-19 lockdown. It accepted that sales channels had shifted away from area sales managers and towards head office and online ordering, that the respondent then reviewed its need for ASMs, and that it reduced the proposed UK ASM structure from nine areas to seven territories. The tribunal rejected the claimant's suggestion that there was no redundancy situation and found that the respondent had sound business reasons for the reorganisation.

The tribunal accepted that consultation was genuine in the sense that the respondent explained the proposals, invited questions and alternatives, and discussed the possibility of voluntary redundancy and the selection process. It also found that the pool was appropriate, that Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands were sensibly treated as separate issues, and that there were no other suitable vacancies for the claimant beyond a technical service apprentice role which he did not regard as suitable. The claimant did not apply for any other territory, and the tribunal accepted that the respondent had no duty to keep offering other regions after he chose not to pursue them.

The dismissal was nevertheless held unfair because the selection criteria were not consulted upon, the most heavily weighted criteria of teamwork, trust and professionalism were too subjective without advance definitions of what would attract particular marks, and the respondent did not base those marks on evidence from examples such as disciplinary records, reviews, capability issues or customer feedback. The tribunal also held that it was unfair that the respondent did not offer an appeal and had not told the claimant that he had a right to one. Although the tribunal accepted the respondent was a small business without an HR department, it did not regard that as a reason why consultation on the criteria, evidence-based scoring, or an appeal could not have been provided.

The tribunal considered that, if a fair procedure had been followed, there was a 75% chance Mr Hulme would still have been dismissed in any event. It therefore found liability for unfair dismissal but left remedy to a further hearing. The claimant's claims for breach of contract and holiday pay had been withdrawn and were dismissed on withdrawal.