E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001647/2024 (V)5 Held on 17, & February 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr M Legge v Croft Communications Limited — 2025

Michael Legge claimed unfair dismissal arising from Croft Communications Limited's decision to dismiss him on redundancy grounds. The tribunal accepted that he had been dismissed, but was not satisfied that there was a genuine redundancy situation. It found Mr Legge to be credible and reliable, and found parts of Mr Benson's evidence inconsistent and not reliable.

On the redundancy question, the tribunal applied s.139(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities cited, including Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd and Kingwell. It found there was a dearth of evidence showing diminished workload or that Croft could carry out the existing and expected work with fewer employees. The tribunal placed weight on the 1 May 2024 email in which Mr Benson said he had "made the decision" that Croft needed to "manage Mike Legge out of the business", and on the evidence that work remained available on the Service Desk and in MOD-related work. It concluded that Croft had not proved a genuine redundancy situation, so the dismissal was unfair.

The tribunal also said that, even if redundancy had been established, the dismissal would still have been unfair under s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Polkey guidance. It found the decision had been prejudged, that the 17 May 2024 meeting was presented as a "catch-up" despite being the start of redundancy consultation, and that the 3 June 2024 meeting presented Mr Legge with a fait accompli. It further found there was no meaningful consultation, no reliable evidence of proper enquiries into alternative employment, and no serious consideration of the appropriate selection pool. The appeal did not alter that conclusion, and the tribunal directed that a remedy hearing be fixed.