Mr J Douglas v Represented by Ms M Simpson Lay Representative Holders Technology UK Limited — 2023

The claimant, Mr J Douglas, brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal first addressed whether his arrangement with Holders Technology UK Ltd was a contract of apprenticeship or a contract of service. It found that the written terms allowed termination on one month’s notice, that he continued doing the same assembly and customer technical work as before, and that the college course was incidental rather than the primary purpose of the arrangement. The tribunal therefore held that he was employed under a contract of service, not an apprenticeship.

On the dismissal issue, the tribunal applied section 98 ERA 1996 and the redundancy analysis in Safeway Stores plc v Burrell. It found that the respondent’s sales had fallen and costs had risen, that cost-saving measures had already been taken, and that the requirements of the business for work of the kind carried out by the claimant had diminished. The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was dismissed wholly or mainly because of that diminution, so redundancy was the reason for dismissal.

The tribunal then considered fairness under section 98(4) ERA 1996, with reference to the range of reasonable responses and the Polkey guidance. It found that the respondent gave adequate warning, consulted with the claimant at meetings on 7 and 9 June 2023, answered his questions, and identified no viable alternative when notice was given. Although a warehouse/assembly operative role became available during the notice period, the tribunal found that the claimant did not wish to pursue it. On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.