Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union v Ippoma

An Employment Tribunal must give sufficient reasons for a finding that an asserted redundancy was a contrivance to dismiss an employee. A finding that redundancy was not established may support unfair dismissal under Employment Rights Act 1996, but it does not by itself explain what the alleged contrivance was, why the employee was dismissed, or what improper motive was found.

Where that unexplained finding is material to mitigation of loss and to a costs order, the remedy and costs decisions are also inadequately reasoned. Those issues should be remitted for determination in the light of findings as to the real reason for dismissal.

The employee was dismissed by the trade union on the stated ground of redundancy. The Employment Tribunal held that his role was not redundant and that the asserted redundancy was a “ruse”. It found the dismissal unfair, awarded the statutory maximum compensatory award, rejected the employer's mitigation argument, and ordered it to pay costs.

The employer did not appeal the finding of unfair dismissal or the finding that redundancy had not been established. It appealed the remedy and costs judgments because both depended on the unexplained finding of a ruse. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had given adequate reasons for that finding and the consequential orders.

1. Appeals allowed. The remedy and costs orders were set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted Employment Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal's finding that redundancy had not been established was sufficient to support its unchallenged conclusion of unfair dismissal under section 98(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The further finding that the purported redundancy was a “ruse” was materially different. It required the Tribunal to identify what the ruse was, the improper motive said to underlie it, and the real reason for dismissal.

3. Applying Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250, the Tribunal had not given reasons sufficient to enable the parties or an appellate court to understand that key finding. Its findings about funding and dissatisfaction with the employee's performance did not necessarily establish why he had been dismissed. It had expressly declined to make findings concerning his allegation that the dismissal was connected with his candidacy for General Secretary.

4. The defect was consequential. The Tribunal relied on the ruse finding to conclude that the employee had not acted unreasonably by declining an interview for his former role, and therefore had not failed to mitigate loss. It also relied on it when finding the employer's conduct unreasonable for costs purposes. The remedy and costs judgments were consequently not Meek-compliant.

5. The fresh Tribunal was directed to determine remedy and costs after deciding the real reason for dismissal, which had already been held not to be redundancy. The finding of unfair dismissal and all other factual findings remained in place, subject to removal of the specified passages concerning the ruse.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeals from the Employment Tribunal's remedy judgment of 13 January 2012 and costs judgment of 30 March 2012 allowed: [2013] UKEAT 0008_13_1906.
• Employment Tribunal: liability judgment initially sent on 11 November 2011 and corrected on 6 December 2011. It found the dismissal unfair; that finding was not appealed and remained in force.