Mr Alan Gordon v Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2021

The claimant complained that he had been unfairly dismissed after the respondent said his role was redundant. He argued that redundancy was not the true reason and that the respondent no longer wished to employ him, and also challenged the consultation and the respondent's understanding of his wider role. The respondent said it had discontinued new product development work, including the mortar pod project, and was concentrating on its standard mixer products.

The tribunal found that, although the claimant had made a substantial contribution to the respondent's mixer product over many years, by at least early 2018 he was engaged in new product development rather than holding managerial responsibility for the production process. It accepted evidence that production oversight, quality control and supervision were carried out by other managers and supervisors, and that adaptations to standard mixers could be handled by existing personnel.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had decided to discontinue the mortar pod project and new product development and to focus on standard mixer production. It found that this amounted to a redundancy situation and that the claimant's dismissal was wholly or mainly attributable to that redundancy, not to an ulterior reason. The tribunal also found that consultation, selection and consideration of available alternative roles fell within the range of reasonable conduct, and therefore the dismissal was not unfair.