Mr K Barnstaple v City Plumbing Supplies Holdings Limited — 2022

Mr K Barnstaple was employed by City Plumbing Supplies Holdings Limited from 6 July 1999 until his dismissal on 21 July 2020, when he was working as a Senior Account Manager. The respondent had decided during the Covid-19 period to reduce its workforce, including reducing Senior Account Managers across the UK, and the tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal within section 98(2)(c) ERA 1996 and section 139 ERA 1996.

The tribunal found that the respondent’s pooling and scoring exercise was a reasonable way to select for redundancy. The selection criteria were agreed across the Regional Manager group, included generic and role-specific criteria, and were applied to all Senior Account Managers in the UK. Mr Muldoon and Ms Frost scored the candidates independently, and the claimant was the lowest-scoring Scottish Senior Account Manager. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that Mr Dermidy influenced the scoring or that the process was biased or predetermined.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent did not follow its redundancy policy exactly because the claimant was not given the scoring criteria and his scores before the first consultation meeting. However, it found that this was not material enough to make the dismissal unfair because an additional meeting was held to discuss the scores, he received them before that meeting, and he had further opportunities to challenge the process but did not do so. The tribunal also found that the claimant was given fair consultation, was invited to consider alternative roles, was offered appeal rights, and that no suitable alternative vacancy was available. It therefore held that the respondent acted reasonably under section 98(4) ERA 1996 and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

On loss, the tribunal noted that the claimant had obtained new employment from 2 November 2020 and had already received redundancy-related sums including statutory redundancy pay, an enhanced payment, six months’ pay in lieu of notice, and benefits for the notice period. It found that these sums, together with the new earnings and benefits, extinguished his claimed losses and expenses. The tribunal added that even if unfair dismissal had been found, no compensation would have been awarded.