Claimant v Macrobert Art Centre Ltd — 2022

The tribunal found that Macrobert Art Centre Ltd experienced a clear diminution in the need for the claimants' work after the theatre closed on 20 March 2020 because of the pandemic. In July 2020 the respondent reviewed its financial position, identified the claimants' posts as at risk, consulted with them, and later decided to make both roles redundant with termination on 31 October 2020.

The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the dismissals were for any reason other than redundancy. It found no evidence that the redundancy exercise was ideological or that the technical department had been targeted. It noted that other staff, including in marketing and coordination roles, were also at risk and some were made redundant. The tribunal therefore held that both claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996.

On fairness under section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal accepted that there had been consultation meetings, the claimants had put forward proposals, and the respondent could have taken a different course. It considered that it would have been reasonable to engage further with the claimants' proposals, but held that the respondent's decision still fell within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in the circumstances of uncertainty caused by the pandemic.

The tribunal also considered complaints about the appeal process, the refusal to release board minutes, the composition of the appeal panel, and the respondent's later decision not to re-engage the claimants when the Job Retention Scheme changed. It expressed some concern about aspects of the process, including the exclusion of a member of staff on maternity leave from the redundancy exercise, but found no sufficient basis to hold the dismissals unfair. Both unfair dismissal claims were therefore dismissed.