Ms L McGroarty st v , Solicitor Manorview Investments Ltd — 2022

The claimant was a chargehand at Innishmhor and the second claimant was also a chargehand there; both had joined Unite in 2018 and had been involved in workplace issues, including grievances about tipping policy, health and safety, bullying and harassment. After the Covid-related closure of the venue, the respondents began a redundancy process because Innishmhor was expected to remain closed for a prolonged period and was loss-making. The initial pool comprised the two claimants and another Unite member as chargehands, together with a separate team member pool.

The tribunal accepted that the respondents’ original pooling approach was challenged during consultation, and that the process was restarted with a wider pool after information from the claimants’ Unite representative was considered. It also found that the weighting in the scoring matrix was amended in response to feedback, that a second manager was brought into the scoring because of concerns about one manager, and that the claimants were given consultation meetings and an appeal. Although the tribunal found some of the respondent evidence unreliable on details such as the timing of the restart and the position of Victoria Edgar, it accepted that Ms Edgar was in the original pool and had effectively reduced the team numbers by resignation before consultation concluded.

On the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 153 TULRCA, the tribunal held that the burden shifted to the respondents because the dismissal of both claimants raised an issue requiring investigation, but that the respondents discharged that burden. It found no evidence of a retaliatory or anti-union agenda, noted that the respondents regularly involved the Unite representative in matters affecting staff, and accepted that the claimants were permitted to be accompanied by him in consultation. The tribunal concluded that the reason for dismissal was the redundancy selection process, not membership of Unite, and dismissed the trade union-related claims. On the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, it held that the redundancy was genuine, that the consultation was meaningful, and that the steps taken on pooling, scoring and redeployment were within the range of reasonable responses. The claims were therefore dismissed in full, and no tribunal award was made.