Mr S Fisher v Represented by: Himself British Gas Services Limited — 2022

The case concerned two field engineers, Mr O'Donnell and Mr Fisher, who were dismissed after they declined to accept revised terms and conditions introduced across British Gas Services Ltd and the wider Centrica group. The tribunal recorded extensive collective consultation with the recognised trade unions, followed by individual consultation meetings, written communications, an online comparison tool, and an appeal process. The hearing dealt with liability only; any remedy was to be considered separately if required.

The tribunal found that the respondent had sound business reasons for the project, including financial pressure, operational change, customer focus, increased consistency across contracts, and avoiding a two-tier workforce. It held that the reason for each dismissal was the claimants' refusal to accept the new contractual terms, following extensive consultation and negotiation, and that this amounted to some other substantial reason within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

As to the individual claimants, the tribunal found that Mr O'Donnell did not meaningfully engage with the process and was wrong in his understanding that the new terms would remove the flexibility he already had. For Mr Fisher, the tribunal accepted that he had access to the information provided, including an electronic copy of the contract and the colleague illustrator, and held that his objection about not receiving a paper copy did not make the dismissal unfair. It also found that concerns both men raised during the tribunal were either not raised during consultation or had already been considered by the respondent.

Applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and considering the size and resources of the respondent together with the substantial merits of the case, the tribunal concluded that the collective and individual consultation were meaningful and that the dismissals fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. It further found that there was no redundancy situation because the respondent's requirement for employees to do the work had not diminished. Both unfair dismissal claims were therefore dismissed.