Carson v Represented by: Mr A Bryce - Solicitor Michael Ball t/a WC in Fields — 2022

Matthew Carson was employed by Michael Ball t/a WC in Fields as a yard operative from 5 September 2014 until 30 October 2020. The tribunal recorded that, because he had received the statutory redundancy payment, he no longer insisted on that claim. The live issue was whether his dismissal on 30 October 2020 was unfair.

The tribunal found that the respondent's events work had fallen away during the covid-19 pandemic, leaving very little yard work for the claimant. It accepted that the claimant had been on furlough and then flexible furlough, that the remaining yard tasks had largely been completed, and that the duties of the yard role could be absorbed by the service drivers. It rejected the claimant's case that his dismissal was really prompted by the email he sent on 9 October 2020 criticising Sarah Simpson.

On the redundancy issues, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy within section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996, that it was reasonable to place him in a pool of one because he was the only yard operative, and that there was no suitable alternative employment available. It accepted the evidence that the claimant could not realistically undertake the driving element of the service-driver work because of the insurance difficulties after his earlier driving ban. It also held that the respondent was not required to continue the claimant on furlough or move him to the then-proposed Job Support Scheme Open as an alternative to dismissal.

The tribunal further found that the respondent had warned and consulted the claimant: he was told he was at risk of redundancy at the consultation meeting on 23 October 2020, given an opportunity to put forward proposals, and met again on 30 October 2020 before dismissal. Applying the relevant statutory and case law tests, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.