Mr Aamer Nawaz v Represented: In Person SYSTRA Limited — 2018

The tribunal found that SYSTRA Ltd dismissed Mr Aamer Nawaz for redundancy and that redundancy was a potentially fair reason under s.98(1) and s.139 ERA 1996. It accepted that work for the graduate trainees in the St Vincent Street office had diminished, noting the fall in utilisation rates between 2016 and 2017 and the absence of evidence that work would return to previous levels.

The tribunal held that the redundancy pool was fair. It decided that limiting the pool to the three graduate trainees in the St Vincent Street office was within the band of reasonable responses, and that the claimant’s argument that other offices or employees should have been included did not make the employer’s chosen pool unfair.

On selection, the tribunal found the criteria were objectively fair because they were relevant to the role and capable of objective assessment. It had some concerns about how Neil Birch gathered information from project managers, but concluded that the approach taken was still within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had two meetings with John Milligan and an appeal, which gave him opportunities to challenge the scoring and provide further information.

The tribunal accepted that John Milligan revised the claimant’s scores after considering the claimant’s points, including increasing scores for team working, market versatility and work winning. It found no basis to conclude that the revised scoring was outside the range of reasonable responses or that the claimant had been deliberately scored low. It also held that consultation was fair and that there were no reasonable alternatives to dismissal that the respondent was required to adopt, including a four-day week or redeployment of the other trainees.

The tribunal found that the Birmingham vacancy was a genuine offer of alternative employment and rejected the suggestion that it was a sham. Because the respondent had a potentially fair reason, used a proper pool, applied fair criteria, carried out a fair consultation process, and was not unreasonable in rejecting the suggested alternatives, the tribunal held that Mr Nawaz’s dismissal was not unfair and dismissed the claim.