Member N Elliot Tribunal Member G Mckay Mrs A Passmore v SSUK Ltd — 2024

The claimant worked for SSUK Ltd as an account manager from 16 December 2016 until 27 October 2023, when she was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal found that the claimant and her husband separated on 31 January 2022, that she later consulted a lawyer about divorce in or around May/June 2023, and that the respondent then experienced business pressure, including a recorded £1 million revenue gap and missed monthly targets, which led the directors to decide on a restructuring and redundancies in sales and procurement.

On the marriage discrimination claim, the tribunal considered three incidents relied on by the claimant: a 18 July 2023 text exchange with her husband, a 2 September 2023 school-related errand, and a 4 September 2023 call from Mr McCahill. It found those events did not amount to less favourable treatment or detriment by the respondent. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that there was a pattern of adverse treatment after lawyers wrote to Mr Passmore, finding no evidence linking those matters to workplace decisions. It held that there were no facts proved from which an inference of discrimination arose, and that the claimant had not shown she was treated less favourably because of marriage or because of who she was married to.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that Mr Passmore was not involved in the redundancy selection process because the claimant was in the pool, and that the selection was carried out by Mr Forbes with external HR input. The claimant was warned that her role was at risk on 12 October 2023, met on 17 October and 24 October 2023, and was shown a redacted scoring matrix based on skills and experience, flexibility, work rate performance, attitude and attendance. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was consulted, that alternative roles were considered, and that the process was not a sham or predetermined.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the redundancy provisions in section 139 ERA 1996 and the section 98(4) reasonableness test. It found that there was a genuine redundancy situation, that the respondent had a financial imperative to reorganise, and that the claimant was selected because her performance, on the evidence relied on by the respondent, was weaker than some others in the pool. It rejected the contention that the process was unreasonable because the claimant was told she was selected during a telephone call on 25 October 2023, finding that this did not make the dismissal unfair. Both claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.