Mrs K Mason Billig v Gardline Shipping Limited — 2017

Mrs K Mason Billig had worked for Gardline Shipping Limited since 2007 in a developing legal and company secretarial role. After Mr Fulford became Head of Legal in August 2015, the working relationship deteriorated. The claimant raised concerns about his management, went off sick with work-related stress, and lodged a grievance in October 2015. Occupational health later reported on 8 February 2016 that she was fit to return, and on 11 February she told the respondent that she would return on 15 February.

Applying section 139(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the usual fairness considerations for redundancy, the tribunal found there was no genuine redundancy situation. It said there was no contemporaneous documentary evidence showing a real reduction in the need for employees to do work of that kind, and that the reasons advanced by the respondent shifted over time, moving between reduced staffing, changed legal focus, outsourcing, and the need for a qualified solicitor. The tribunal also found there had been no meaningful consultation, no proper consideration of a pool or suitable alternative work, and no real engagement with the claimant's grievance before the redundancy process began.

The tribunal concluded that the redundancy was a sham and that the claimant was dismissed because Mr Fulford did not want her in the department. It noted that the respondent later advertised a role that was substantially similar to the claimant's former role. On the expenses issue, the tribunal said the evidence suggested the claims had been sent for authorisation and were likely genuine, but it did not finally quantify any contractual remedy in this judgment and left that issue for the remedy hearing.