Ms M Mackinnon v Voneus Broadband Ltd — 2025

Ms M Mackinnon brought a claim of unfair dismissal after her employment ended on 28 March 2025. The respondent accepted dismissal but said the reason was redundancy. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had raised a grievance in August 2024, but it found that the later redundancy process was driven by a genuine reduction in Network Build activity and external investment, affecting 93 roles including the regional Heads of Build.

The tribunal accepted that by February 2025 the respondent's requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind had ceased or diminished, or were expected to do so, within section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996. It found that the claimant's Head of Build-Scotland role ceased to exist as part of the wider reduction in build activity. It also found that the respondent was entitled to treat each regional Head of Build as a single standalone role and that this was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.

On procedure, the tribunal found that collective consultation had begun on 18 February 2025 and continued for at least the statutory minimum period. It found that the claimant was warned that her role was at risk, invited to individual consultation meetings, provided with information about the redundancy situation, and offered alternative roles. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not apply for alternative employment, including a suggested Head of Regional Delivery (North) role, and that she did not exercise her right of appeal after dismissal. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.