Mr K Buck v Central Management Catalogue Agency (UK) Ltd: 1306511/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1306511/2024
Between
Mr K BuckClaimantCentral Management Catalogue Agency (UK) LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge WalkerIn person for claimantMiss Adele Akers (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 28 March 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.[2]There is a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. As such, no compensatory award is payable by the respondent to the claimant. The claimant also received a redundancy payment upon termination of his employment. As such, no basic award is payable by the respondent to the claimant. Employment Judge Walker Approved on: 28th March 2025 Case No 1306511/2024 …………………………………… Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.[2]There is a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. As such, no compensatory award is payable by the respondent to the claimant.[3]The claimant received a redundancy payment upon termination of his employment. As such, no basic award is payable by the respondent to the claimant.
REASONS
[1]The claimant, Mr Kevin Buck, was employed by the respondent, Central Management Catalogue Agency UK Limited from 6th January 2011 until his dismissal on the 24th of July 2024.[2]The claimant claims that his dismissal was unfair within Part X of the employment rights act 1996 (‘ERA’).[3]The respondent contests the claimant’s claim. It says that the claimant was fairly dismissed for redundancy or, in the alternative, for some other substantial reason (business reorganisation carried out in the interests of economy and efficiency) and that it was entitled to terminate his employment because of that.
The Hearing
[4]I heard the claim in Birmingham on the 17th and 18th of March 2025. The parties attended via CVP.[5]The claimant represented himself and gave evidence to the tribunal.[6]The respondent was represented by Miss Akers of counsel. The respondent called evidence from Darren Topley, managing director, Robert Crawford, the founder and chair of the respondent and Imogen Edmunds, HR advisor, from Redwing Solutions Limited, the respondent’s outsourced HR advisors.[7]I considered documents from an agreed bundle running to 219 pages. I further considered an audio recording of a consultation meeting between the claimant and Mr Topley dated the 10th of April 2024. There was a second audio recording of the appeal hearing between the claimant and Mrs Edmunds, but the parties did not require the tribunal to listen to that recording.[8]Over the course of the first day of the hearing, it became apparent that it the respondent’s accounts (and especially a summary of profit and loss) for the accounting period ending December 2023 may be relevant to the matters to be determined by the tribunal. Copy accounts for that period and the preceding accounting period ending December 2022 were provided overnight after the first day of the hearing and were added to the bundle at page numbers 210-223 (for the 2022 accounts) and 224-245 (for the 2023 accounts).
Issues
[9]At the outset of the hearing, I had a discussion with the parties regarding the issues for me to decide. These included identifying the reason for the claimant's dismissal.[10]The claimant stated that he did not accept that the reason given by the respondent was the real reason for his dismissal. He believed that he was dismissed in order to make way for Mr Crawford to rejoin the business and take his role.[11]The respondent maintained that the real reason for the claimant’s dismissal was redundancy or some other substantial reason, the reason in question being business reorganisation carried out in the interests of economy and efficiency.[12]We also agreed that I would need to consider the question of procedural fairness in the event that either of the reasons advanced by the respondent was indeed the reason for dismissal.[13]The respondent argued that in the event that the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal was successful, the tribunal should consider making a ‘Polkey’ deduction. Although this was primarily an issue of remedy, it was closely linked to issues of liability and it was therefore appropriate to consider it at this hearing.
Findings of Fact
[14]My relevant findings of fact are as follows.[15]The claimant was employed by the respondent as Head of Development. He commenced his employment on the 6th of January 2011 and his employment came to an end on the 24th of July 2024. The claimant had various roles with the respondent and was appointed to the role of Head of Development in December 2022.[16]The respondent is a service provision company that supplies codification, obsolescence management, defence procurement and long-term storage solutions to a number of commercial and governmental clients, including the Ministry of Defence.[17]The respondent’s government contracts come up for periodic renewal. The respondent is obliged to tender for those contracts when they expire. The contracts do not simply roll on. I find that an unusually large number of the respondent’s high value government contracts were due for renewal in early 2024.[18]I find that the respondent believed it would not be awarded all of the contracts (or ‘lots’, as the respondent termed them) that it was bidding for.[19]In his cross examination of Mr Topley, the claimant questioned the respondent’s state of knowledge regarding the loss of contracts and questioned in particular whether the respondent had anticipated losing contracts in advance of the renewal process or whether the loss of contracts came as a surprise to it. He drew particular attention to the use of the words “unexpected” and “anticipated”, both of which had been used by the respondent in respect of the contract renewal process.[20]Mr Topley’s evidence on this point (which was not disputed by the claimant) was that the respondent was aware that contracts would be due for renewal, but that the number of contracts that were coming to end at the same time was unusual. I find that this was the case.[21]As it was, the respondent lost eight out of the nine lots that it bid for under the new contracting regime. I find that the lots in question were high-value contracts for the respondent.[22]The claimant drew attention to a number of other contracts that the respondent had secured, some of which were producing a financial return at levels over and above that which was anticipated. Although there was considerable discussion in cross examination about these contracts, I find that, ultimately, there was significant underlying agreement. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the contracts that the claimant identified and the claimant was not, by his own admission, in a position to dispute the value of those contracts as summarised by Mr Topley. I find that those contracts existed and were indeed producing high returns, but that the returns on those contracts were, as Mr Topley said, smaller than those on the contracts that were ultimately lost.[23]Mr Topley and Mr Crawford stated in evidence that the respondent’s profit had increased from £600,000 to £800,000 in the financial year ending 2022 but had then dropped to £274,000 in the financial year ending 2023. I find that these figures were not exact but were in general terms substantiated by the respondent’s accounts for the periods in question. I find that the loss of profit was real and was directly linked to the loss of contracts and the reduction of work that needed to be performed under those contracts as the renewal dates loomed.[24]I therefore find that the respondent feared a significant loss of income as a result of the outcome of the bidding process and that those fears were well-founded.[25]Four directors of the respondent (Mr Crawford, Mr Topley, Mr Gary Harman and Mr Geddy Blake) met on the 19th of March 2024 to discuss cost saving measures in light of the respondent’s changed financial position. This discussion included a review of team size and company structure. There was a very brief minute of the meeting made by Mr Harman. However, the respondent’s evidence (which was not challenged by the claimant) was that this meeting lasted for 2 1/4 hours, notwithstanding that the length of the meeting is not reflected in the minutes. I find that the meeting did indeed last that long.[26]The respondent’s employees were considered by the respondent to fall into two groups – one group holding operational roles directly related to the operation of the respondent’s contracts and one group holding overhead roles. The claimant’s role was considered by the respondent to be an overhead role. During cross examination, Mr Topley and Mr Crawford both stated that, during the meeting, the directors had reviewed all roles in the business to decide where cuts should be made. Although there was no written evidence to substantiate those assertions, their accounts were consistent and I found their evidence on this point to be credible. I therefore find that the directors had considered both operational and overhead roles during that meeting and that the decision to remove only the claimant’s role followed on from that wider consideration of the needs of the business as a whole.[27]The key part of the minutes states: The restructure will consist of the Head of BD role being made redundant and these responsibilities will be absorbed within the roles of the Chairman, MD and GM (with the Heads of Department to assist when SME knowledge is required). The MD will contact our HR legal advisor to ensure due process is followed and to update the job profiles of the senior staff members and the company structure CD.[28]During cross examination and in response to questions from the tribunal, Mr Topley and Mr Crawford both stated that the board minutes were intended to be read as meaning that the decision to remove the claimant’s role (what was termed in the minutes “the Head of BD role”) would only have been taken after consultation - in other words, no final decision to remove that role had been made on the 19th of March and the final decision would not be made until consultation was complete. Miss Akers asked me to accept this evidence and to read the minutes accordingly.[29]I do not accept these explanations. I find that the decision to make the claimant’s role redundant was taken on the 19th of March, as the minutes suggest. In making this finding of fact, I have paid particular attention not only to the minutes themselves but also to two other specific references in the pleadings. Firstly, at paragraph 14 of the respondent’s grounds of claim, it is stated in relation to the board meeting of the 19th March: The decision was made to make the role of Head of Business Development redundant, with the responsibilities being absorbed within the roles of Mr Robert Crawford the Chairman, Mr Darren Topley the Managing Director and Mr Geddy Blake the General Manager. Secondly, at paragraph 52, it is stated in relation to the same meeting: The Respondent confirms that, at the Board meeting on 19 March 2024, the decision was made to make the role of Head of Business Development redundant, with the responsibilities being absorbed within the roles of the Chairman, the Managing Director and the General Manager.[30]Both Mr Topley and Mr Crawford conceded that they had seen the grounds of resistance before they were lodged with the tribunal. I am satisfied that one or both of them would have corrected one or both of these references if they had not been correct.[31]I further find that those references reflect a natural reading of the board minutes of the meeting on the 19th of March.[32]As of the 19th of March 2024, I find that the respondent had genuine and wellfounded concerns about its financial future and it was seeking to save at least some costs. I find, though, that the cost saving exercise was somewhat limited in scope. The only measures that appear to have been taken in consequence of the respondent’s concerns were to vacate office space in Worcester and to remove the claimant’s role from the respondent’s organisational structure. However, it is for the respondent to determine what and how many cost saving measures it needed to make.[33]Following the board meeting of 19th March, the respondents sought legal and HR advice from Redwing Solutions Limited and, as a result of that advice, commenced a consultation process with the claimant.[34]There were four consultation meetings with the claimant between 3rd April and 23rd April 2024. The consultation process lasted for around three weeks.[35]The first meeting took place between the claimant and Mr Topley on the 3rd of April. Mr Harman attended as note-taker. I find that the meeting was very brief and largely involved Mr Topley reading out a pre-prepared script. I find the principal purpose of this meeting was to notify the claimant that his post was at risk of redundancy and to allow him some time to process that and prepare himself for subsequent consultation meetings. The claimant was notified that his role was at risk of redundancy and was told the reasons for that. He was told there were currently no other job opportunities. He was told that the respondent was willing to listen to any proposals he might have to avoid redundancy. He was offered the chance to go home to digest the news.[36]The second meeting took place on the 10th of April. Mr Topley chaired the meeting and Mr Harman attended as note-taker. Mr Topley again worked from a script. This script specifically included the question of whether the claimant had any ideas about how his redundancy could be avoided.[37]The claimant spoke extensively at the meeting. He expressed his concerns that the decision to make him redundant may have been linked to perceived personal issues with Mr Topley, which issues he felt may have been the driving force behind his dismissal. The claimant felt that there had been an orchestrated process to remove him. He felt that these issues started following an incident during the IIOM conference in October 2023 which the respondent had attended as principal sponsor and during which Mr Topley had experienced personal difficulties whilst delivering a conference presentation. The claimant had had to step in to assist Mr Topley with the presentation and queried whether Mr Topley had felt undermined as a result. Subsequently, the claimant stated that his colleague, Adele, had been removed from his team, that he had felt undermined by Mr Topley during the respondent’s Board of Management meeting in February 2024 and that he had been required at short notice to attend the board meeting of 19th 2024 March at short notice, which request had subsequently been rescinded at very short notice.[38]The claimant also made a number of observations about his own achievements and about the historic performance of the company.[39]The claimant specifically asked why the managing director's role (Mr Topley’s role) had not been considered and evaluated as part of the redundancy exercise, given what the claimant termed recent failures and historical performance in that role. However, I find that the claimant did not, at that meeting, propose any other ways that his redundancy could be avoided.[40]Throughout the meeting, the claimant asked for responses to his various points, but Mr Topley and Mr Harman declined to respond. I find that that there was a marked reluctance on the part of the respondent to derogate from script or to engage with the various questions and points that the claimant made during the meeting. Throughout the meeting, the claimant made certain statements and then asked questions arising from those statements. Mr Topley declined to answer any of those questions, saying that he would take those questions away and respond in writing to the ones that he considered to be relevant.[41]A very significant part of the claimant’s case as expressed not only at the meeting on the 10th April but also throughout both the consultation and appeal processes related to his achievements in his roles and to historic business decisions that he felt should have been handled differently. In essence, I find that the claimant believed that the respondent could and should have taken certain decisions in the past and done certain things which, if done at the time, may have meant that there was no redundancy exercise necessary at all on the 19th of March 2024. However, the question that the tribunal must determine is not whether things might have been different had the respondent run its business differently, but whether the situation in which it found itself by the 19th of March justified the decision to make the claimant’s role redundant.[42]Although the claimant felt at the time of the consultation process that Mr Topley wished to remove him from the respondent, he conceded that, subsequent to his dismissal (but prior to the tribunal hearing) he had formed the view that, in reality, it had been Mr Crawford and not Mr Topley that had made the decision to remove his role.[43]As a result of the comments made by the claimant about Mr Topley’s motivations during the meeting of 10th April, the respondent took the decision to remove Mr Topley from the process. That decision was conveyed to the claimant by letter dated 15th April 2024.[44]Mr Crawford chaired the third meeting with the claimant on the 17th of April 2024. Again, a script was used and, again, it was stated that the respondent would consult about ways of avoiding redundancy. Feedback was given to the claimant at that meeting, including in relation to the suggestion that the role of managing director should have been considered for redundancy. The respondent felt this would not work, as the role of managing director could not be absorbed by other post-holders in the way that the claimant’s role could. Mr Crawford also explained why the decision had been taken to restructure the claimant’s role and how it as felt that the role could be absorbed. Mr Crawford also stated that the events at the IIOM conference had had no bearing on the respondent’s restructuring proposals.[45]The claimant was asked if he had any suggestions to make. The claimant stated that contract losses would not be felt until 2025 and that redundancies were not therefore necessary at the current time.[46]Mr Crawford wrote to the claimant on the 18th of April. In that letter, he stated that the claimant’s role would be absorbed by Mr Crawford, with support from the managing director. Mr Crawford offered the claimant an alternative role as a stores coordinator. He also fed back (albeit without a great deal of particularity) on the claimant's suggestion that redundancies were unnecessary as any losses would not be realised until 2025. The letter stated that the board had carefully considered the claimant’s comment and it was felt that it was best that the restructuring exercise proceeded at that time.[47]The claimant refused the alternative role offered to him as it paid significantly less than even the claimant’s starting salary with the respondent. It was common ground between the parties that the claimant was being reasonable in refusing this offer and I find that the claimant was indeed acting reasonably by refusing it. I also find that it was reasonable for the respondents to make that offer, as without asking the claimant if he wanted the role, they had no way of knowing whether or not he would have accepted it. Had he accepted it, his redundancy would have been avoided.[48]The final consultation meeting took place on the 23rd of April. Mr Crawford was due to chair that meeting but was unable to attend and asked Mr Harman to take the meeting in his place. I find that Mr Harman acted as Mr Crawford’s proxy at that meeting. Again, a script was used and I find that Mr Harman did what Mr Crawford had asked him to do and what Mr Crawford would himself had done had he been able to attend that meeting.[49]The purpose of the final meeting was to a) convey the decision to terminate the claimant’s employment, b) to let him know that his performance had not been a factor in that decision and c) to notify the claimant of the termination arrangements. I find that there was no opportunity for further consultation or for the claimant to raise any further points at that meeting.[50]Mr Crawford sent a letter to the claimant the following day confirming his dismissal by reason of redundancy. The claimant was told in that letter that he would receive a statutory redundancy payment. The letter invoked garden leave provisions and stated that the termination date for the claimant’s employment was to be the 24th of July 2024.[51]The procedure followed by the respondent was challenged by the client in his cross examination of Mr Topley and Mr Crawford.[52]The claimant put to Mr Topley that he felt that his role of Head of Development was regarded by the respondent as being an insecure role (as compared to the secure, operational roles) and that had he known this in December 2022, he would not have accepted that position at that time.[53]Mr Topley stated that no roles were intrinsically insecure, the decision to remove the Head of Development role only having been taken during the board meeting in March 2024.[54]I am satisfied that the distinction between secure and insecure roles did not exist as at December 2022 and it was only during discussions in March 2024 as to which roles could be removed and which could not that this distinction first arose. I find that the claimant’s role with the respondent had evolved and grown over time. Although he had only been placed in the Head of Development role by Mr Topley some 15 months previously, I do not find that, at the time Mr Topley made that decision, he did so with any expectation that the role was to be a short-lived one.[55]Insofar as the claimant’s prior suggestion that his redundancy had been orchestrated is concerned, I have seen no evidence to support the contention that the events of October 2023 onwards were part of a campaign to remove the claimant. To the contrary, Mr Crawford and Mr Topley’s both gave oral evidence to the tribunal that they held the claimant in high regard and that they had not wanted the claimant to leave if it could be avoided. I find that claimant was, quite understandably given his achievements, a well-regarded employee and this view of him on the part of the respondent did not change.[56]I find that as a result of the March board meeting, Mr Crawford had been invited to take a greater role in the company that he himself had founded and which he himself referred to in evidence as “his baby”. He had previously carried out a development role for the respondent in 2015 and 2016. It was a role that was familiar to him. I find that it was agreed that the claimant’s role of Head of Development could be split between three existing directors and that Mr Crawford would take no additional remuneration for carrying out his additional duties.[57]Against the backdrop of significantly reduced profit and the uncertainty of the anticipated loss of contracts over the course of 2024, I find that it was reasonable for Mr Crawford seek to make wage savings and that it was reasonable for him to seek to make those savings on the overhead side of the business.[58]I find that the claimant’s role was shared out amongst directors without leading to additional wages costs for the respondents. There was therefore a potential saving for the respondent equivalent to the amount of the claimant’s salary.[59]The claimant also challenged the respondent’s decision to appoint a third-party company to assist in generating work through cold-calling. This took place subsequent to the claimant’s dismissal. Although the claimant considered that this was part of his business development role, I accept Mr Crawford’s evidence and find that cold-calling was not part of the role of the Head of Development, even if it was something that might reasonably be carried out by more junior team members. I also find that the third-party company were first engaged some months after the claimant’s dismissal and that they provided their services on a two day per week basis. Although an operative of that company was held out as being the respondent’s business development manager, I find that this role was not the same as the claimant’s role and does not represent either a replacement of his role by an outsourced third party or incurring by the respondent of additional costs in relation to tasks that, until his dismissal, had been carried out by the claimant.[60]During cross examination, the claimant also drew attention to various adverts for employees on the respondent’s social media pages. He suggested that longstanding available roles had been taken down prior to his redundancy and then re-posted after his redundancy. However, there was no evidence in the bundle to substantiate this allegation. I find that, had the respondent wanted to part company with the claimant at all costs, he would not have been offered the alternative role he was offered.[61]Despite raising his concerns about his dismissal being orchestrated during the consultation process, the claimant's case before the tribunal was that the real reason for his dismissal was because Mr Crawford wanted to rejoin the business and do his job. In cross examination, Mr Crawford stated that doing the claimant’s job would not have been his first choice but that he was prepared to assist the respondents. I accept that evidence, but equally, I find that the claimant was ultimately removed because Mr Crawford was returning to the business (whether willingly or not).[62]I do not, however, find that Mr Crawford was taking on the claimant’s role. He was only taking on a part of that role - the remainder was shared by his fellow directors. There is no suggestion that the other directors were obliged to increase their working hours and, although Mr Crawford was obliged to take on some additional duties as a result of the division of the claimant’s role, I find that there was a reduced need for employees to carry out work of the type that the claimant had carried out prior to his dismissal[63]The claimant was the only employee affected by the cost saving decision. The claimant felt that all roles in the respondent’s organisation should have been considered for redundancy. He felt that he could have carried out the role of head of procurement on the grounds that he had carried out the procurement role prior to taking on the Head of Development role on a full-time basis. Although the respondent could have included the head of procurement in any redundancy exercise, I find that the decision to treat the claimant as being in a pool of one for redundancy selection purposes was reasonable. There were no other employees carrying out the same type of work as the claimant.[64]Throughout the consultation process, the respondent relied heavily on preprepared scripts produced by their professional advisors. These were in the bundle. Although there were various mentions in those scripts to the respondent seeking alternatives to the claimant’s redundancy, I find that in light of the decision that had already been made on the 19th March to remove the claimant’s role from the organisation, these efforts were limited almost entirely to seeking alternative work for the claimant.[65]Mr Topley stated in response to a question from the tribunal that when looking at alternatives to redundancy, the respondent's focus had been looking at vacancies within the business. Mr Crawford said that other options were considered but could not recall what they were. He stated that identifying an alternative role was the primary way in which the claimant could be retained. Mrs Edmunds also confirmed that the search for alternative work was the principal way in which the claimant’s redundancy could have been avoided. She did not think anything else had been considered.[66]Although the respondents were happy with the claimants work and believed him to be an exemplary employee, and although they were perfectly happy to retain the claimant if a suitable alternative role could have been found for him, in reality I find that the consultation process was limited in scope.[67]As such, although the procedure followed by the respondent was potentially fair, involving as it did four consultation meetings and the removal of Mr Topley when it appeared he might be conflicted, I find that those meetings lacked substance. There was insufficient attention paid to the claimant’s points. I find that this arose from the respondent’s view that, the decision to make redundancies having been taken, the primary purpose of consultation was to seek alternative work for the claimant. Admittedly, many of the claimant’s points did not relate to the question of whether or not the claimant's role was redundant as at March 2024, but I find that a reasonable employer would have actively sought to identify alternatives to dismissal over and above the search for alternative employment. The search for alternative work is one part of a fair redundancy exercise, but is not the only part.[68]The claimant appealed against his dismissal and his appeal was heard by an outsourced HR company, Redwing Solutions Limited. Mrs Edmunds was the officer appointed to carry out the appeal.[69]As had been the case throughout the consultation procedure, I find that the claimant’s appeal was based principally on his assertions that there was an ulterior motive for his dismissal. He also continued to draw attention to his prior achievements for the respondent.[70]The appeal meeting took place on the 10th of May. The claimant set out his concerns about the way the consultation meetings had been handled and also set out a summary of his achievements, both for the respondent and with previous employers. He highlighted questions that he felt had not been answered and reiterated his concerns that his redundancy was motivated by personal issues.[71]Mrs Edmunds provided a detailed outcome letter on the 17th of May 2024. She rejected the claimant's grounds of appeal and upheld the respondent’s decision, although she did confirm that she would suggest that the respondent should adopt a redundancy policy to be used in the future.[72]Mrs Edmunds conceded in evidence that she had not engaged with the claimant’s arguments around dilution of his role. Overall, although Mrs Edmunds did carry out an investigation into the claimant’s appeal points, I find that the outcome of the appeal did not correct any of the issues that I have found existed in the original process.[73]As Mrs Edmunds stated in evidence, redundancy consultation is a two-way process. I have found that the respondent’s failure to properly seek alternatives to redundancy fell below the standard that would be expected of a reasonable employer. However, in a redundancy exercise, the potentially displaced employee can reasonably be expected to put forward proposals to save their job. Whilst the claimant pointed at various historic missed opportunities and set out his prior achievements, I find that, with the exception of a) his suggestion that the managing director's role should have been considered as part of the process and b) his suggestion that there was no need for redundancies to take effect until 2025, he did not otherwise seek to advance alternatives that the respondent, in the position that it was in as of the 19th of March, could have considered in order to retain the claimant.[74]In cross examination, the claimant suggested that it was not his place to do this. However, I find that the respondent was closely following pre-prepared scripts and that, as part of those scripts, the claimant was expressly given the opportunity at the second and third consultation meetings to put forward alternatives to redundancy. These alternatives were not necessarily limited to the finding of alternative roles for the claimant. The respondent responded to the two suggestions that the claimant did make, and I find that, due partly to their heavy reliance on the scripts but partly also to their positive views of the claimant, the respondent was open to considering to any other suggestions that the claimant might have made. The respondent’s failure to seek alternatives on their own account without being prompted by the claimant represents a breach of procedure, but I find that, had the claimant taken the opportunity that was offered to him to advance any proposals of his own, any proposals he put forward would have been given due consideration.[75]As it was, I find that the claimant’s focus throughout the consultation procedure was primarily on the situation as he perceived it should have been rather than the situation as it actually was. Relevant law and conclusions – unfair dismissal[76]Section 94 of the ERA gives employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Enforcement of the right is by way of complaint to an employment tribunal under section 111 ERA.[77]The claimant must first show that he was dismissed by the respondent pursuant to section 95 ERA.[78]Section 98 of the ERA deals with the fairness of dismissals. There are two stages within section 98. Firstly, the employer must show that it had a potentially fair reason for the dismissal within section 98(2). Secondly, if the respondent can show that it had a potentially fair reason for the dismissal, the Tribunal must consider, the respondent acted fairly or unfairly in dismissing for that reason within section 98(4) ERA. Neither party bears the burden of proof when it comes to considering that second stage.[79]In all aspects of the case, the Tribunal must decide whether the employer acted within the band or range of reasonable responses open to an employer in the circumstances. It is immaterial how the Tribunal would have handled the events or what decision it would have made in the respondent’s place. The Tribunal must not substitute its view for that of the reasonable employer (Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones 1982 IRLR 439 and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Hitt 2003 IRLR 23).[80]Redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(2) (c) ERA.[81]The definition of redundancy is set out at section 139 (1) ERA. As Miss Akers remined, me, that section states: For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to— (a)…. (b) the fact that the requirements of that business— (i) for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or (ii) for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.[82]Section 98(4) deals with fairness generally and provides that the determination of the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair, having regard to the reason shown by the employer, shall depend on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.[83]The respondent admits that it dismissed the claimant on 24 July 2024. Accordingly, section 95 ERA is satisfied.[84]I have found that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was because of the reduced need for employees to carry out work of a particular type occasioned by the decision to divide the claimant’s role amongst the directors. Although I can fully understand the claimant's frustration as to this decision and whilst I accept that his frustration is only likely to have increased as a result of the underlying issues in the redundancy consultation process, I do not find that the respondent was seeking an excuse to remove the claimant from his role or that the claimant’s actions in assisting Mr Topley at the conference in October 2023 represented him “shaking the tree” (as he put it) one too many times.[85]As I have found that there was a reduced need for employees to carry out work of the type carried out by the claimant, I find that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.[86]The respondent has therefore satisfied the requirements of section 98(2) ERA by showing a potentially fair reason for dismissal.[87]In redundancy dismissals, the leading case on section 98(4) fairness in the circumstances remains Williams v Compair Maxam Limited [1982] IRLR 83. In general terms, employers acting reasonably will give as much warning as possible of impending redundancies to employees, consult them about the decision, the process and alternatives to redundancy, and take reasonable steps to find alternatives such as redeployment to a different job.[88]I find that the respondent gave appropriate notice of the impending redundancy to the claimant also took reasonable steps to seek alternative employment for the claimant. I further find that the decision to place the claimant in a pool of one for redundancy selection purposes was reasonable having regard to all of the circumstances of this case and to the size and resources of the respondent.[89]I find that there were four consultation meetings, but these meetings lacked substance. I find that this was principally because the decision that the claimant’s role was redundant had been made prior to the first consultation meeting and that the respondent believed that its principal focus was on identifying an alternative job for the claimant.[90]I am satisfied that the respondent genuinely wanted to retain the claimant, but in limiting consultation to the question of alternative work and by taking no steps on its own account to investigate whether there were any other ways in which the claimant’s redundancy could be avoided, I find that the consultation procedure did not satisfy the test of reasonableness. Accordingly, the claimant's dismissal was unfair. Relevant law and conclusions – ‘no difference’[91]I agreed with the parties at the start of the hearing that I would consider evidence relating to the question of whether any unfairness in procedure made any difference to the outcome. In her submissions, Miss Akers referred me to the case of Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8. This case deals with the making of adjustments to compensation in circumstances where it can be shown that, if a fair process had been followed by the respondent in dealing with the claimant’s case, the claimant might have been fairly dismissed in any event.[92]In considering ‘Polkey’, I am not assessing what I would have done in the respondent’s place. Instead, I am assessing what this employer would or might have done.[93]Miss Akers submitted that if there were any procedural failings, they made no difference to the eventual outcome. She submitted that, the claimant would still have been dismissed at the same time.[94]The claimant disputed this and submitted that had a fair procedure been followed, the outcome would have been different. Specifically, he felt that a fair procedure would have considered procurement roles for redundancy rather than development roles. As such, a fair procedure would have looked elsewhere in the company for potential cost savings and his role would have remained safe. Whilst I understand the importance and complexity of the claimant’s role I must remind myself that it is not for me to interfere with business decisions made by the respondent. The decision to make the claimant’s role redundant was a reasonable one, even if anther employer might have done something different.[95]During his evidence, the claimant identified certain other steps that he felt could have been taken to save costs and avoid his redundancy. These related to reducing occupation costs at the respondent’s business premises at Steanier and Yate. However, by his own admission, he did not raise these suggestions during the consultation process. He further accepted in cross examination that the proposals he advanced during the tribunal hearing in relation to cost savings at the respondent’s Steanier site would not have been workable.[96]I find that if the respondent had acted reasonably by actively giving proper consideration to all alternatives to redundancy (and not just searching for a new role for the claimant), the most likely outcome would have been that the claimant would have been made redundant in any event. Over the course of four consultation meetings spanning a period of roughly three weeks he did not advance any proposals that might have saved his role other than proposing that consideration should have been given to removing the managing director’s role or that redundancies were not required on financial grounds as at April 2024.[97]Although the decision to make the claimant’s role redundant had been taken by the 19th of March, the respondent’s decision to subsequently seek legal advice and the respondent’s heavy reliance on the scripts provided for it as a result of that advice gave an opportunity for the claimant to widen the scope of consultation and challenge the decision to make his role redundant. I am satisfied that, had he done so, any points he raised would have been given due consideration.[98]I therefore find that this is a case in which the procedural failings, whilst sufficient to render the claimant's dismissal unfair, did not change what this particular respondent would fairly have done had those failings not arisen.[99]Accordingly, the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal succeeds and he is entitled to a declaration to that effect. However, in light of my findings on the ‘Polkey’ point, I make no award for compensation in the claimant’s favour.[100]The claimant has no entitlement to a basic award as his redundancy payment extinguishes that award.