Mr C v Novograf Limited — 2019

Mr C worked for Novograf Limited from 18 April 1988 until his dismissal on 31 March 2018. The tribunal found that the business had experienced a downturn, that redundancies were considered across the company, and that the claimant was placed in a four-person graphic design pool scored against a selection matrix. It accepted that he was invited to consultation meetings on 19, 26 and 27 March 2018, was shown his score, and was then dismissed for redundancy with a right of appeal.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr Marshall and Mr McKee that the claimant was told his timekeeping and attendance were being discounted from the scoring because they were treated as a personal matter. It found the pool definition by job title was a matter for the employer, that the change from Senior Graphic Designer to Graphic Designer in late 2017 did not adversely affect the redundancy exercise, and that there was no manifest unfairness in the scoring or consultation. The appeal was conducted by Mrs Riddell-Dillet, who considered the claimant's points and gave a reasoned rejection, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.

On disability, the tribunal found that Mr C was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and that Mr Marshall had known of his depression for many years before dismissal. It accepted the GP evidence that the condition had been present for years and varied in severity, at times affecting his ability to get out of bed, attend work on time, or attend at all. However, it concluded that the disability played no part in the redundancy selection, that the claimant was selected because he had the lowest score in his pool, and that the complaints framed around disability discrimination, including the argument about adjustments, did not succeed. Because both claims failed, there was no remedy award.