In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal held that the claimant, Miss J L Barends, was fairly dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. It found that the first Covid lockdown caused a genuine reduction in conveyancing work at Adlams Solicitors, that the firm’s plan to reorganise the department to save costs was genuine, and that the claimant’s previous role differed significantly from the proposed new conveyancing assistant role. The tribunal accepted that the redundancy situation fell within s.139(1) ERA 1996 and that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy within s.98 ERA 1996.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that redundancy was not the real reason for dismissal. It found that an earlier 2017/18 discussion with Miss Whitfield about a leaked email was a robust conversation, but not a proven episode of bullying or a factor showing a wider malaise in the employment relationship. It also found that the claimant’s evidence about the July 2020 discussion with Miss Coombs was partly overstated: the tribunal accepted that Miss Coombs probably expressed reservations about the claimant taking the new role, but did not accept that she shouted at her or told her not to bother applying.

Although the tribunal considered that the consultation process had flaws, particularly in the way the conversation with Miss Coombs was handled, it held that the overall process was still fair. The claimant was invited to trial alternative roles, including reception and the new conveyancing assistant post, but chose not to engage further after the exchange with Miss Coombs. The tribunal found that Mr Lowther’s letters in August and September 2020 were a genuine attempt to correct any misunderstanding and re-invite her to trial the new role.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had considered alternative employment reasonably. It accepted that the claimant rejected the receptionist role after a trial, did not pursue the appeal process, and was not entitled to be offered every later vacancy before others. In particular, the tribunal held that the later part-time conveyancing assistant post filled by Miss Pressland did not have to be offered to the claimant, and in any event would probably have been rejected. The claim was dismissed in full and no monetary award was made.