The claimant was employed by the Ardoyne Association, an unincorporated body which provides advice services in North Belfast, and was dismissed in March 2015. The respondent argued that the claimant was dismissed fairly on the ground of redundancy based on a lack of funding. The claimant argued that she had been both automatically and substantively unfairly dismissed. 

Two other employees were also selected for redundancy, but no objective criteria had been applied in the selection of the pool of candidates and it was described as ‘arbitrary’ by the tribunal. It identified that one of the main issues was the unequal treatment of the claimant in relation to the other candidates since they were offered further opportunities volunteering whereas the claimant was not. 

What was also noted was that a number of opportunities to secure funding actually did arise, with the employer failing to utilise them in an attempt to retain the claimant’s services. The statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures were not followed and it was held that the dismissal was automatically unfair. Due to the unfair selection, lack of consultation and failure to seek alternative employment on the part of the employer, the dismissal was also held to have been substantively unfair.

Practical Lessons

The tribunal was unsure why the employer proceeded with a redundancy when other potential candidates were invited to remain within the organisation and further funding opportunities became available. Myriad issues ensured that the respondent failed to properly deal with the dismissal, but the tribunal clearly identified the disparity in treatment as a crucial factor. 

Alternatives such as inviting the claimant to volunteer, reducing hours or delaying the payment of salaries were not considered and really ought to have been. When dealing with a pool of redundancy candidates, an employer must ensure that nobody is ‘singled out’ which can leave itself open to such a claim. 

It is not the role of the tribunal to determine whether redundancies are justified, but here the tribunal closely analysed the chronology of available funding opportunities and was of the view that the money potentially existed to retain the claimant yet was not utilised. This scrutiny performed by the tribunal demonstrates the positive obligation on employers in redundancy situations and is one employers must be particularly aware of.

This case review was written by John Taggart BL. NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/