15 In Person Tela Technology Ltd v 20 Represented by Ms Tracy Newman-Malin Head of HR 25 — 2021

The claimant was a Desk Based Account Manager in Glasgow. In early 2020 the respondent decided to regionalise the function, which the tribunal found created a redundancy situation because there was less need for Desk Based Account Managers in Glasgow. Consultation began on 4 and 5 February 2020 with a matrix selection process, and the claimant was told that Business Development Manager and Telemarketing Executive were suitable alternative roles. The respondent later created an additional Business Development Manager post, and the claimant moved into that role on a trial basis along with two colleagues.

The central dispute was whether the claimant had been given a guarantee that, if the trial did not work out, he could return to the redundancy consultation and matrix process for the Desk Based Account Manager roles. The claimant said that was the basis on which he accepted the move. The tribunal rejected that account. It found that the claimant agreed to take the Business Development Manager role because he saw it as potentially beneficial, that he was not merely assigned to it, and that the respondent's position communicated to the team was that a trial period was for the individual, with redundancy payment available if the person chose not to continue, rather than a right to return to the selection matrix.

The tribunal also found that the consultation had effectively ended on 7 February 2020 with the team agreeing not to proceed down a matrix route and instead moving into the alternative roles. It accepted that Covid then interrupted the new role, the claimant was furloughed, and by October 2020 he was unhappy in the Business Development Manager role and sought to return to account management. The respondent said there were no suitable Glasgow account management roles available, and the claimant ultimately accepted voluntary redundancy on 3 November 2020.

Applying the constructive dismissal principles it identified, including s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and Western Excavating v Sharp, the tribunal held there was no contractual breach in the respondent's refusal to return the claimant to the original redundancy consultation exercise. It therefore found that the claimant had not been unfairly constructively dismissed and dismissed the compensation claim for loss of earnings and commission.