EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102326/2020 (V) Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 19, and January 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod i o v Represented by Mr G Bathgate Solicitor Fiona McAulay Chivas Brothers Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed as an HR Administrator and that the respondent closed the Paisley facility and moved back-office functions, including HR, to Glasgow. In October 2018 Ms Campbell told the claimant she could be “based at Kilmalid”, which the claimant understood as an assurance that she would not need to work in Glasgow. In January 2019 Mr Livingstone corrected that position and said the HR Administration team would move to Glasgow. The claimant later raised a grievance about the change of position and about redeployment, but the grievance and appeal were not upheld.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the dismissal was for redundancy, that the claimant did not dispute the redundancy situation or the consultation process, and that the respondent had offered her her own role in Glasgow as suitable alternative employment. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and referring to Williams & Others v Compair Maxam Ltd, the tribunal concluded that there was no proper basis for saying the dismissal was unfair. The claimant’s complaint about the earlier Kilmalid reassurance did not establish a sufficient connection to the dismissal itself. The tribunal said the issue was not a constructive dismissal claim, and that the dismissal was inevitable once no acceptable alternative role was found.

On the redundancy payment claim, the tribunal accepted that the Glasgow role was suitable alternative employment. It held that the claimant did not rely on the transport and caring-responsibility reasons she had mentioned at the time, but instead relied on the fact that she had been told she would be based at Kilmalid and considered the respondent to have gone back on that assurance. The tribunal found that this was not a reasonable basis for refusing suitable alternative employment and that the claimant had not unreasonably refused the offer. It therefore held that the respondent was entitled to withhold the statutory redundancy payment under section 141 ERA 1996. Both claims were dismissed and no financial award was made.