The claimant was employed by the respondents as a system manager.  He had been in that position for six years.  The unfair dismissal claim arose when there was a restructuring of the business.

In 2017, the claimant was in charge of health and safety, quality environmental business continuity and information security and pre-qualification questionnaires. The respondent sought to restructure, proposing the three sections having separate managers. It was at this point that the threat of redundancy was then pointed out to the claimant alongside those who worked in his department.

In the restructuring process, the claimant was invited to a consultation meeting where he was given two job descriptions with a view to applying for the new manager positions.  He was also advised that he could be sent the third but it was felt that he would not be as suitable for that role.  At this meeting and the subsequent consultations, the claimant made it clear that he would not be applying for the new positions.  The claimant was subsequently told that the Board had decided unanimously to make him redundant.  In fact, the Board had not met to discuss this.

The Tribunal held that there was a redundancy situation in line with Article 174(1) of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996.  However, it was held that the respondent did not act fairly and reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissing the claimant.   This was based upon a number of factors including the fact that the previous work of the claimant would be continuing, his work was not criticised, and he was suited for the new roles.  The Tribunal also noted that the claimant was only offered the chance to apply for the jobs rather than being offered the jobs. As a result, the claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed and was awarded £57,609.36.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the importance in having appropriate policies in place for redundancy. Whilst it was not the reason that the respondent was found liable, the Tribunal made note of the fact that the respondent had no redundancy policy.

For employers this decision should reaffirm the need for a redundancy process to be adopted that would allow for certainty for all those concerned in such a process.

The final lesson is the need to ensure that if there is alternative work available in the business, then this should be offered rather than merely the opportunity to apply for the other job.