in person For the Second claimant: did not appear For the Third claimant: in person For the v Mr McFarlane (professional representative) — 2023

The claimants were employed as carers/personal assistants for the respondent. After the respondent's care needs changed, consultations took place between November 2019 and July 2020 about a new live-in rota and lower-cost care arrangement. The second claimant withdrew his claim at the start of the hearing. The first and third claimants were dismissed with effect from 30 September 2020, and the tribunal considered unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay issues.

Applying s.98(1) and s.98(4) ERA 1996, s.98(2)(c), s.139(1)(b), Safeway Stores plc v Burrell 1997 ICR 523, and Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd 1982 ICR 156, the tribunal found there was a redundancy situation because the respondent's requirement was expected to be met by fewer employees, from four personal assistants to two live-in carers. It held that the dismissals of the first and third claimants were fair: they were warned and consulted, the respondent listened to their views, there was no suitable alternative work, and the respondent was working within limited financial resources.

The tribunal rejected the claimants' case that they should have remained on furlough until the scheme ended, finding that this was a misunderstanding rather than the respondent's intention. It held that the respondent was not bound to keep them furloughed indefinitely and that, at the time of dismissal, the redundancy decision was genuine.

The first and third claimants succeeded only on notice pay. The tribunal held that notice pay should have been calculated at full pay rather than furlough pay and awarded £75.66 to the first claimant and £80.31 to the third claimant, each representing three weeks at the difference between their furlough pay and normal weekly wage. Their holiday pay claims were dismissed because the tribunal found that the holiday pay had been correctly paid.