Case 4106713/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4106713/2020 (V) Held by means of the Cloud Video Platform on and July 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mrs Lynette Barron
The claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal after being told on 16 June 2020 that the role of Head Housekeeper was being made redundant with immediate effect, subject to notice to 24 July 2020. The respondent accepted that the claimant had been dismissed but contended that the dismissal was fair because it was by reason of redundancy. The tribunal accepted that the hotel had been operating at a loss, that the business had to close in March 2020 because of Covid-19 restrictions, and that Mr Wallace reviewed the hotel's staffing and costs in response.
The tribunal found that Mr Wallace reasonably concluded that the Head Housekeeper role was redundant after the hotel changed to a structure based on multi-function areas rather than departments. It found that he consulted the claimant at meetings on 5 June and 15 June 2020, explained the need to save money, and addressed her question about whether she could remain a housekeeper. The tribunal accepted that he considered whether there was any alternative role for her and that, on the basis of the circumstances then known, he was entitled to conclude that there were no other roles available.
Although the hotel reopened on 15 July 2020 earlier than expected, and some staff changes and short-term recruitments followed, the tribunal was not persuaded that these later developments showed the redundancy dismissal was a sham or unfair. It found that the later vacancies were not foreseeable when the dismissal decision was made, and that the respondent was reacting to changing circumstances as they arose. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant had not been unfairly dismissed and dismissed the claim.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.