Macquet v Naiade Resorts (UK) Ltd

An employment tribunal must give sufficient reasons to show how it identified the issues, found the relevant facts, applied the law and reached its conclusions. In a redundancy case, serious financial pressure or general headcount reductions do not by themselves establish the statutory diminution or cessation in the employer’s need for employees to carry out work of a particular kind. The tribunal must identify the relevant work and make findings about any actual or expected reduction.

In relation to selection and consultation, the tribunal must explain why an employee was placed in a particular pool and why the consultation was fair, including its timing, information, scope and results. Failure to do so is an error of law. The case was remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal.

The claimant appealed against an Employment Tribunal decision which found that his dismissal was by reason of redundancy but was not unfair. He had been employed as Marketing Communication Manager for Europe. A newly appointed senior employee was given wider global marketing-communications responsibilities, including work previously undertaken by the claimant.

The Employment Tribunal accepted that the respondent faced serious financial pressures, that the claimant’s role differed from the new employee’s role, and that the respondent had followed a fair procedure. The claimant argued that the tribunal had not identified any diminution in the need for employees to perform work of his kind, had inadequately explained his exclusion from the selection pool, and had failed to explain why consultation was adequate.

The central issue was whether the tribunal’s reasons sufficiently explained its findings and the application of the statutory redundancy and fairness requirements.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s reasons were inadequate and failed to comply with rule 30(6) of Schedule 1(6) to the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, and with the principles in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250.
2. Under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act, a redundancy situation requires a finding that the employer’s requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have ceased or diminished, or are expected to do so. Financial pressure, economies, reorganisation or general staff reductions are not themselves determinative. The tribunal identified only serious financial pressures and did not identify the relevant kind of work or any actual or expected diminution in the respondent’s requirement for it.
3. The tribunal also failed to explain why the newly appointed employee could not be included in the same selection pool. The fact that her role was different or wider did not, without more, justify excluding her. The reasons did not address the overlap between the roles or the timing of the claimant’s warning of redundancy.
4. The finding that consultation was adequate was unsupported by sufficient reasoning. The tribunal did not explain when consultation should have occurred, what information was provided, what issues were considered, what was achieved, or whether consultation began after the decision to integrate the roles had already been made. Fair consultation requires engagement while proposals remain formative, adequate information and time to respond, and conscientious consideration of the response.
5. Because the deficiencies affected the redundancy, selection and consultation issues, rehearing by the same tribunal was inappropriate. The matter was remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s decision sent on 3 August 2010 and remitted the case for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal: Found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy but had not been unfairly dismissed.