Ms S Ault Foreman v G D Hair Limited — 2025

Ms S Ault Foreman was employed by G D Hair Limited as a Technician from 23 March 2022 until her dismissal on 22 May 2024. The tribunal found that her role was a standalone colour technician role and that, by spring 2024, the respondent had experienced a downturn in demand for colour work. It accepted Mr Greatrix's evidence that the salon needed to make better use of staff time and move toward multi-skilled roles because the claimant's role involved periods of downtime and there was less demand for colour treatments.

The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996. It found that the requirements of the business for work of that particular kind had diminished and that the claimant was dismissed because of that diminution. Applying the redundancy authorities it had set out, the tribunal accepted that it was for the respondent to decide how to organise the salon's work and that it did not need to justify the business reasons behind the reduced demand, provided redundancy was genuinely the reason.

On fairness under section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the respondent warned and consulted the claimant over the redundancy proposal between 8 and 21 May 2024. It accepted that the claimant was told her role was at risk, that she was given two consultation meetings, and that she was offered alternatives including multi-skilling, working on Tuesdays, and temporary lay-off or short-term working. The tribunal held that consultation took place while the proposals were at a formative stage and that the respondent gave her adequate information and time to respond.

The tribunal also found that the claimant was the only employee placed at risk, so the respondent had treated her as a pool of one, which it held was reasonable because she was the only standalone colour technician. It further held that the respondent had taken reasonable steps to avoid dismissal by offering alternatives, and that the absence of a formal appeal did not make the dismissal unfair. The tribunal rejected the respondent's wider submissions about the claimant having engineered her redundancy or prepared a competing salon before dismissal, and it dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.