Ms A Carse, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant brought a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge Jack heard evidence from the claimant and from Mr Martell, the dismissing officer. The tribunal also dealt with disclosure disputes and noted, among other things, an internal BP document referring to the claimant's redundancy and share options, but the merits decision turned on whether the dismissal was truly by reason of redundancy.

The tribunal accepted Mr Martell's evidence that the claimant's formal title, Director of Partnerships, was not a meaningful description of a distinct role and that no one reported to him. It found that the claimant was in substance part of the sales force, carrying out work of the same nature as other business development managers, even though he was assigned particular tasks such as building leasing-company and wholesale business. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that those tasks amounted to different kinds of work for the purposes of section 139 ERA 1996.

On the facts found, the tribunal held that there was no redundancy situation because the respondent's requirements for employees to carry out work of that kind had not ceased or diminished. The tribunal noted that the respondent advertised for another business development manager in November 2017, which was inconsistent with any diminution in the need for sales work. It concluded that the claimant was selected because of his high pay rather than because of a genuine redundancy.

The tribunal also found that during the redundancy meetings the share options were discussed and that Mr Martell assured the claimant he would still receive them. However, it found insufficient evidence that the loss of share options was a major factor in the dismissal decision. Because the tribunal answered the redundancy issue in the negative, it did not need to determine the remaining fairness issues or the remedy questions, and the remedy hearing was adjourned.