Mr C Rennie v Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2024

The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy after the respondent implemented Project Fleet, a restructuring intended to reduce costs and centralise functions. The Tribunal accepted that redundancy was a potentially fair reason and did not find unfairness in the respondent's decision to restructure, decline to ringfence salary, use a lower redundancy multiplier than in previous restructures, or attach a lower salary to the proposed Senior Port Duty Manager role.

The Tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent's consultation and redeployment process fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The respondent delayed or was reticent in confirming the redundancy package and providing contractual documents, and more importantly required the claimant to confirm quickly whether he wished to pursue the Senior Port Duty Manager role while refusing to provide exact salary information or a fuller explanation of the duties removed from his existing role. The Tribunal found this deprived him of sufficient information to make a realistic decision about redeployment and to prepare for any salary negotiation.

On remedy, the claimant did not seek reinstatement, and the Tribunal found reinstatement was not practicable because his previous role was redundant. The Tribunal found re-engagement was practicable, particularly in light of an advertised Port Technical and Assets Manager vacancy, the claimant's willingness to take that role, and the absence of evidence of loss of trust and confidence, relationship difficulties, health concerns, competency concerns, or contributory conduct. Further procedure was ordered to address the precise terms of the intended re-engagement order.