Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union v Ippoma

An Employment Tribunal must give sufficient reasons for a finding that an asserted redundancy was a contrived device to dismiss an employee. A finding that redundancy was not established may justify unfair-dismissal liability, but it does not itself explain the improper motive required for a finding of ruse.

Where that unexplained finding is material to mitigation of loss and costs, the resulting remedy and costs decisions are not Meek-compliant. They must be set aside and remitted for determination on properly reasoned findings.

The claimant, a project manager employed by the respondent trade union, was dismissed purportedly for redundancy. The Employment Tribunal found that his post was not redundant and that the dismissal was unfair. In a corrected liability judgment it also described the redundancy as a ruse, but declined to make findings on the claimant's allegation that his candidacy for General Secretary was the reason for dismissal.

Relying on the ruse finding, the Tribunal rejected the respondent's mitigation case after the claimant declined an interview for his former role. It made the maximum compensatory award and ordered the respondent to pay costs. The respondent appealed the remedy and costs judgments, alleging inadequate reasons and perversity.

1. Appeals allowed. The Employment Tribunal's finding that redundancy had not been established was unchallenged and remained sufficient to support its finding of unfair dismissal. However, its further finding that the redundancy was a ruse went materially further.

2. The Tribunal did not explain what the alleged ruse was, what improper motive caused the dismissal, or why the claimant was dismissed. Those were necessary matters to address before characterising the purported redundancy as a ruse. The finding therefore failed to meet the requirement, explained in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250, to give reasons sufficient to tell the parties why they had won or lost and to permit appellate review.

3. The deficiency was decisive because the Tribunal used the ruse finding to infer a breakdown of trust and confidence, reject the assertion that the claimant had unreasonably failed to mitigate his loss, and find the respondent's conduct unreasonable for costs purposes. The remedy and costs judgments were consequently also not Meek-compliant.

4. The perversity ground did not require determination. In the absence of reasons identifying the basis of the ruse finding, it could not properly be decided.

5. The remedy and costs orders were set aside and remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal. It must determine the real reason for dismissal, known not to have been redundancy, and then determine remedy, mitigation and costs. The unfair-dismissal finding and other factual findings remained in place, subject to removal of the specified passages founded on the ruse finding.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the respondent's appeals against the remedies and costs judgments. It set aside those orders and remitted remedy and costs to a fresh Employment Tribunal.

• Employment Tribunal: Found the claimant unfairly dismissed because redundancy had not been established. It subsequently awarded compensation and ordered the respondent to pay costs, relying on a finding that the redundancy was a ruse.