Mr R Alexander, solicitor Judgment The v Mr E Marshall Standard Life Assets and Employee Services Ltd and 50 others — 2023

Mr Marshall had worked for the respondent since 1998 and, after a 2020 regrading, held the role of Head of Proposition Deployment. In 2022 the respondent restructured the Workplace Business Unit so that his team would be split between two other teams, with his role no longer required. The tribunal found that this amounted to a redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996 because the need for someone to lead that team had ceased.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had considered the claimant for a role on the TTP3 project, but found that his repeated objections to reporting to Ms Moodie meant the respondent was entitled to conclude he would not be committed to the role and that an effective working relationship was unlikely. In the particular circumstances, and given the strategic importance of the project, the decision not to offer that role as alternative employment fell within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s conduct did not support his contention that the respondent had acted unfairly by withdrawing the role.

On pooling, the tribunal held that it was reasonable not to pool the claimant with the Heads of Member Proposition and B2B Proposition because the roles were not sufficiently similar and the respondent had considered the issue in consultation with the PCRF. On the Bid Manager role, the tribunal found that the claimant did not identify the role he said should have been offered, and it was reasonable for the respondent to seek that information. The tribunal also noted that the claimant made clear at an early stage that he would be looking for alternative work and did not appeal the dismissal.

Although the tribunal said the respondent could and perhaps should have given the claimant more information earlier in the process, it concluded that the redundancy dismissal was fair and that, if redundancy had not been made out, the dismissal would in any event have been fair for some other substantial reason, namely the business reorganisation. The tribunal recorded that remedy was not required because the claimant accepted he would not be able to recover compensation if successful, and the claim was dismissed.