Prince v Groundwork Wrexham & Flintshire (Unfair Dismissal)

A reduction in the number of employees required to perform management work may amount to redundancy even where the duties formerly performed by a dismissed employee continue to be performed by others. The question under Employment Rights Act 1996, section 139, concerns the employer’s diminished requirement for employees, rather than the disappearance of every duty.

The adequacy of individual redundancy consultation and the selection pool are fact-sensitive questions. An appellate tribunal should not interfere with the Employment Tribunal’s conclusions unless they are perverse or rest on a material error. A pool of one may be within the range of reasonable responses where a distinct post is genuinely abolished.

The Claimant, the Respondent charity’s Operations Director and Deputy Executive Director, was dismissed after financial losses led to a restructuring proposal reducing management posts from four to two. Her post disappeared. She was consulted, submitted alternative proposals, and was offered the newly created posts, but did not apply.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed her unfair-dismissal claim. It found a genuine redundancy situation, redundancy as the reason for dismissal, adequate consultation, and no unfairness in treating her as the sole member of the selection pool.

The Claimant appealed on five grounds, concerning alleged evidential inconsistencies, the redundancy finding, consultation and disclosure, the adequacy of reasons, and selection criteria.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal made no error of law in rejecting the unfair-dismissal claim.

2. The Tribunal was not required to address every alleged inconsistency in the evidence. Its judgment showed that it had considered and rejected the allegation that the Executive Director had acted dishonestly, out of self-interest, or pursuant to a plan to remove the Claimant. The alleged inconsistency was not so important that its omission from the reasons amounted to an error of law.

3. The Tribunal correctly applied section 139(1)(b)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Respondent’s requirement for employees to carry out management work had diminished when the restructuring reduced four management posts to two. It did not matter that some or all of the Claimant’s former duties continued to be performed after her dismissal. The Tribunal’s finding of redundancy was supported by the action plan, the evidence, and the Board’s decision.

4. The adequacy and timing of consultation were factual matters within the general guidance in Williams v Compair Maxam. The Tribunal was entitled to find consultation adequate. The Claimant knew the proposed changes, attended the first Board meeting, and submitted detailed counter-proposals. It was not necessary to make a separate express finding about her access to the risk-assessment document or to address every individual submission about consultation.

5. The Respondent was entitled to use a pool of one. The Claimant occupied a distinct, senior post which was abolished, and there was no suggestion that her role was similar to those of the other managers. The choice of pool is primarily for the employer. The Tribunal could interfere only if the choice fell outside the range of reasonable responses, which it did not.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the Claimant’s appeal and upheld the dismissal of the unfair-dismissal complaint.
• Employment Tribunal, Towyn and Kinmel Bay: judgment sent to the parties on 7 December 2010 dismissing the Claimant’s unfair-dismissal complaint.