Employee Made Redundant In A Car Park Wins £42,000

A recent case in the Employment Tribunal shows the importance of getting a redundancy process correct.

Mr Dolby, the Claimant, was employed as a Business Development Manager at Stuart Plant Ltd and had been so for 10 years. He had been asked by his boss, Stuart Sayer, for a ‘catch-up’ at a local Holiday Inn, on about an hour’s notice.

Once there, the pair chatted for about an hour on various company matters including the fact that another manager (who reported into the Claimant), had resigned. As the pair walked back to their cars, Mr Sayer told the Claimant he was redundant.

This was followed up in a letter confirming the Claimant’s termination by reason of redundancy. Even the Employment Judge concurred the Claimant has been sacked in a ‘brutal manner’.

Due to financial constraints, the Claimant actually mitigated his loss very quickly and started a role at Marks & Spencer (and then other subsequently lower paid roles) to bring in some income. However, there was a significant ongoing loss compared to his previous salary of £42,000 per annum. As such the Tribunal decided to award the full sum up to the statutory cap of £42,000.

The case is a lesson to employers, but also there are some points employees should also note. These practical points are as follows:

• It highlights the importance of holding a proper redundancy consultation process. One of the key reasons the employer lost the case was that failure of any type of process to be held. Once the letter had been sent to the Claimant, any process they later tried would be have held as a predetermination.
• Potentially redundant employees should always be offered the chance to apply for any other roles at the company, even if the roles seem unlinked to their skills. If they are unsuitable for the role this can be handled during the application process. A further key point as to why the Respondent lost in this case was the fact that the Claimant could and should have been offered the role of the employee that had resigned and was talked about by the two in their meeting. The Claimant actually managed the Key Account Managers, which the resigning employee was one of, and we could have undertaken this role. This role would have constituted suitable alternative employment.
• Due to the failure to offer the other role as suitable alternative employment, the Respondent could not then use a Polkey argument to reduce the compensation payable to the Claimant, by arguing even if they had concluded a fair process the Claimant would have been redundant anyway.
• A final practice point I noted, was this case shows the burden of resources the Tribunal system is currently under. The Claimant was actually dismissed on 2 November 2018, but the case was finally held at the Tribunal in February 2021. I am speaking to a lot of Claimant and Respondent clients at the moment with live Tribunal cases, and am forewarning them of the likely delays in the Tribunal process and the length of time it is currently taking for matters to get to the Tribunal due to the large impact of Tribunal resources due to COVID-19.

WHAT TO DO NEXT

If you have been made redundant, or are an employer that needs to look at its current structure of employees, please get in touch with Ian Abel at Oakwood Solicitors via i.abel@oakwoodsolicitors.co.uk or 0113 200 9720.