Mr Francis MacDonald v Represented by: Mr G Bathgate, Solicitor The Corum Partnership — 2021

Mr Francis MacDonald was employed by The Corum Partnership from 7 April 2003 until his employment ended on 27 March 2020, when he was Finance Director. The respondents said the dismissal was by reason of redundancy arising from reduced business, the introduction of a CRM system, and a restructuring in which the Finance Director role would be split between the existing finance team, Robertson Craig and Mr Kelly. The claimant said the redundancy was a construct or sham and that the real reason for his dismissal was the earlier disciplinary process concerning the tax-information issue in October 2019.

The Tribunal found that a redundancy situation existed. It accepted that the respondents had introduced technology that automated some finance work, that sales and profits had fallen at the end of 2019, and that the respondents had decided in early January 2020 to make cost savings by restructuring the management and senior team. It concluded that the claimant’s role was genuinely no longer required in its existing form, that the role could be split, and that the reason for dismissal was redundancy rather than the disciplinary matter.

On fairness under s.98(4) ERA 1996, the Tribunal held that the claimant was appropriately placed in a pool of one given the unique and stand-alone nature of the Finance Director role. It considered the consultation process over six weeks and noted that Mr Davidson met the claimant on multiple occasions, discussed the proposed cost savings, alternative roles, and possible ways to avoid redundancy. Although the Tribunal thought some of Mr Davidson’s responses were defensive and that the process was mechanistic, it held that the respondents had given the claimant a fair and proper opportunity to comment and that the decision fell within the band of reasonable responses.

The Tribunal also considered the appeal process. It accepted the claimant’s concern that Mr Kelly would hear the appeal, but held that this was not outside the band of reasonable responses and that the respondents could have used an external appeal manager but were not required to do so. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the Tribunal did not need to consider remedy.