Mr A Paterson v Invicta Trout Limited — 2021

Mr Paterson had been employed by Invicta Trout Limited since 30 November 2004 and was Farm Manager by February 2020. The tribunal found that, after the General Manager was promoted into post, Mr Duffin met the claimant on 27 February 2020 and later assured him that his position was safe. When the pandemic affected the business, the claimant was placed on furlough from 23 March 2020 at his own suggestion, and by July 2020 the respondent was making substantial losses and looking to reduce costs and headcount.

The tribunal applied section 98 ERA 1996, the redundancy definition in section 139(1), and the authorities of Safeway Stores plc v Burrell, Kingwell & Others v Elizabeth Bradley Designs Ltd, and Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd. It found that the requirements of the business for a Farm Manager had ceased or diminished, that the claimant's work was absorbed by the remaining staff, and that the dismissal was caused wholly or mainly by the reorganisation rather than by any personal agenda to get rid of him. The tribunal accepted Mr Duffin's evidence as straightforward and credible and rejected the claimant's case that the decision had already been made in advance of consultation.

On fairness, the tribunal held under section 98(4) that Invicta Trout Limited had acted reasonably in the circumstances. It noted that the respondent was a small employer with limited redundancy experience, had issued consultation letters on 11 and 20 July 2020, held a meeting on 28 July 2020, continued correspondence in August and September 2020, and gave the redundancy decision on 10 September 2020. The tribunal found that the claimant had not engaged with the process because he believed it was futile, that selection by post was fair in the circumstances, and that there were no suitable alternatives because the objective was to reduce staff costs. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had received a redundancy payment of £7,841.22, notice and holiday pay, and a £1,500 ex gratia payment, and the tribunal made no award on the separate asserted underpayment point.