ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100046/2017 Hearing at Glasgow on and May 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Nicholas Hill v SpaceandPeople plc — 2017

The claimant had been employed by the respondent since 2004 and was Sales Director from 2009. In early 2016 the respondent decided, after business changes and the need to service new major clients, to split the Sales Director role into two posts: Client Services Director and Sales Administration Director. The claimant was shown a draft specification for the new role and was told that the respondent wanted to retain him within the business, but the package for the new role involved a lower basic salary, no car allowance, and a guaranteed bonus structure for the first two years.

The tribunal found that the respondent consulted the claimant over a series of meetings in January, February and March 2016. It found that the claimant was not expressly told at the first meeting that he was redundant, but that the change and its impact on his role were made clear over time. The tribunal also found that the respondent offered him the Client Services Director role as alternative employment, that the role was suitable to his skills and experience, and that on an objective basis the guaranteed pay made the offer suitable despite the lower basic salary. The claimant’s concerns about his mortgage and the reduction in basic pay were noted, but the tribunal treated those as subjective concerns that did not alter the objective suitability of the offer.

Applying section 98(1) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with section 139(1), the tribunal held that there was a genuine redundancy situation because the requirements of the business for the claimant’s existing work had diminished following the reorganisation. It referred to British Aerospace v Green, Williams & Others v Compair Maxam Ltd, Murphy v Epsom College, Mitchells of Lancaster (Brewers) Ltd v Tattersall, and Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd in its analysis of redundancy, consultation and reasonableness. It concluded that the respondent acted reasonably in all the circumstances, so the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. No tribunal award was made.