Mrs S Hodgeon v JD Sports Fashion plc: 2407976/2023
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that: The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed.REASONS
[1]Mrs Hodgeon was employed by the respondent as a Customer Care Operations Manager from 9 November 2015 until her dismissal on 30 June 2023.[2]Mrs Hodgeon presented a claim for unfair dismissal on 9 August 2023.[3]The respondent disputes the claim on the basis that the claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The Issues for the Tribunal to decide[4]At the outset I discussed with the parties the issues in the case and the list of issues to be determined was agreed as follows:4.1 What was the principal reason for Dismissal? The Respondent says the reason was redundancy as the claimant’s role was no longer required. Mr Norbury on behalf of the claimant confirmed that the claimant accepts there was either a redundancy situation or a restructure.4.2 If the reason was redundancy, did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant. Did the Respondent: 4.2.1. adequately warn and consult the claimant; Mr Norbury confirmed the claimant’s position is that the respondent failed to properly follow the collective consultation procedure and the individual consultation procedure in that she was given insufficient information about the reason for redundancy and insufficient justification for her role being made redundant; 4.2.2 adopt a reasonable selection decision, including its approach to a selection pool and any scoring within the pool. The claimant says the selection pool was not properly addressed by the respondent and should have included the day operations managers as well as her; 4.2.3 take reasonable steps to find the claimant suitable alternative employment. The claimant says the respondent failed to properly and genuinely consider alternative roles for her.4.3 Was dismissal within the range of reasonable responses.4.4 Is there a chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed, or for some other reason?4.5 If so, should the claimant’s compensation be reduced? By how much?Evidence
[5]I considered the agreed bundle of evidence provided by the parties comprising 201 pages as well as the statements of the claimant and the statements of Ms Ashley Dickinson and Ms Lisa Deveney on behalf of the Respondent.[6]The Respondent submitted two documents as late evidence relating to the collective consultation and the questions and answers raised by employees during the consultation. The documents are relevant to the issues and therefore I allowed those documents for consideration in evidence in the claim further to the overriding objective. The claimant sought permission to rely on late evidence being a profile page for a colleague who she contended had been promoted to Lead Operations Manager at the time she was dismissed. The document was to put a name to the person the claimant was referring to at paragraph 24 of her statement and I allowed that document for consideration in evidence in the claim further to the overriding objective.[7]The claimant gave sworn evidence. I heard sworn evidence on behalf of the respondent from Ms Ashley Dickinson and Ms Lisa Deveney.Findings of Fact
[8]The respondent is a public limited company and operates a chain of retail stores selling sports fashionwear. The respondent did not in their ET3 or Grounds of Response set out details about their number of employees, sites or number of employees at the site where the claimant worked, but as a Plc they clearly are a business of significant size and resource.[9]The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Customer Care Manager as confirmed at section 1.1 of her contract of employment. She was contracted to work 40 hours per week from Sunday to Saturday, with such additional hours as specified to properly fulfil her duties. It is not stipulated in her contract as to whether those hours are to be worked day or night. From the commencement of her employment on 7 November 2015 until September 2019, the claimant worked in the respondent’s Day Team. From September 2019, she worked as Customer Care Operations Manager on the Night Team, until her dismissal on 30 June 2023.[10]Ms Ashley Dickinson is employed by the respondent as People Relations Business Partner[11]Ms Lisa Deveney is employed by the respondent as Associate Director of Customer Care Operations. Ms Deveney is responsible for the Customer Care operation and the delivery of Customer Care key performance indicators across all JD Sports facias. Ms Deveney was the claimant’s line manager from February 2019 onwards.[12]There were two Customer Care Operations Managers as at 2019, who were the claimant and Paul Rawlinson.[13]In 2019, the respondent proposed to move the Admin Team to nights to create additional seating for call takers during the day. The claimant and Paul Rawlinson were asked if they would move to nights. Mr Rawlinson declined the move, the claimant agreed to move to working nights with the Admin Team. Ms Deveney says the move to nights was intended to be permanent. This was not confirmed to the claimant in writing and no formal change was made to her written contract of employment, although the contract in any event did not specify days or nights.[14]The Customer Care Team expanded from 2019 and as at May 2023 the Operations Managers in Customer Care were: The claimant, Night Admin Team Paul Rawlinson, Outsource, day team Alexandra Blackburn, International, day team Sarah Knowles, Outdoors, day team Jenette McGratten, UK, day team[15]In April 2023, pay rises were confirmed and many of the Customer Care team were awarded a 9% pay rise. The claimant received a 4.5% pay rise and was told this was because her salary was higher than other Operations Managers. When questioned about this in evidence, Ms Deveney confirmed that the respondent's new CEO was looking to streamline operations and align roles and this approach informed the pay review process. She also confirmed in oral evidence that the pay rise was dealt with by the salary team and she had no influence on their pay review decision. I accept Ms Deveney’s evidence and I find that the claimant’s pay rise at 4.5% in April 2023 was not linked to the redundancy situation she was subsequently involved in from May 2023.[16]The claimant managed the night team in her role as customer care operations manager and supported the team in delivering their KPIs. Her team included 4 team managers, 4 senior customer care advisers, 45 customer care advisors and one team coach. The night team were responsible for administrative tasks such as manual refunds, creating gift cards, dealing with claims for missing parcels, as well as responding to customer e-mails taking customer calls and responding to social media contacts during the night.[17]The claimant was included on the weekend rota with the other Operations Managers, to cover Saturday and Sunday on call one in every five weekends, to deal with any emergencies over the weekend, as there was limited management presence over the weekend. The claimant attended daily manager meetings at 9.30AM. During those meetings, information was shared between the operations managers as to what was happening in their teams and the claimant shared information for the night shift. If the claimant didn't attend those 9:30am meetings on any occasion then Ms Deveney would catch up separately with the claimant to discuss information relating to the night team.[18]The claimant during oral evidence said that she looked after the day team in the period from 8pm to 10pm. In the notes of the meeting she attended as employee representative on 18 May 2023, it is recorded that she said at that time, the day team worked until 20:00 but the outsourcers worked till 22:00. Day team operations managers had variable finish times, day team leaders finished their shift at 8PM and day advisers worked to 10PM. An evenings team manager oversaw their work and it was not the claimant’s direct responsibility to do so.[19]I find that whilst KPIs are similar for all the operation managers in Customer Care, each of their roles are different, by way of example, day team operations managers have many meetings with external stakeholders throughout their shift, which the claimant did not do on night shift. I accept Ms Deveney’s evidence and find that generally speaking, there was very little movement between the day and night shift teams.[20]In March 2023, Ms Deveney met with Ryland Griffiths, her manager, to discuss and review the Customer Care Department strategy. Ms Deveney was aware from daily data she received that there was a very low volume of calls during the night and further analysis was then carried out in relation to the night operations. She and Mr Griffiths concluded from the information available to them that the 24 hour operation model did not appear economically viable. After this strategic planning stage in March 2023, they requested further information about the night team work and a competitor analysis was carried out. Given their conclusion about the economic viability of the night shift team, a consultation plan was devised for the redundancy consultation process, which was circulated to the HR team by email on 24 April 2023.[21]On 3 May 2023, Ms Deveney and Mr Griffiths reviewed the analysis of the volume of emails, telephone calls and social media volumes prepared by Kristen Furniss, Head of MI and Workforce Management. They noted from that information that just over 5% of the daily demand was received between 10pm and 6am with less than 1% of calls being received within those hours. In addition, they concluded the nightshift was more expensive to run as they received a 20% pay enhancement for working nights.[22]By email dated 5 May 2023 Mr Griffiths set out bullet points of information shared with the Senior Leadership Team about costings and competitor alignment. The bullet points shared with the Senior Leadership Team were: “Alignment with Competitor and JD Group CC operating hours.• 1% of total voice contact is received between 10pm and 6am.• Removal of 20% hourly night rate allowance.• Forecast annual payroll £1.3m.• FY £330k cost reduction”. Cost saving was clearly a consideration in the decision making. Discussions with the Senior Leadership Team based on all information gathered since March 2023, lead to the decision to put the night team at risk of redundancy and to not select staff from the day shift given that the day and night shifts operated separately.[23]On 10 May 2023 an announcement was made in writing to all affected staff about the collective and individual consultations and Ms Deveney read out the announcement during a meeting. It was confirmed that following a review of Customer Care Department Operations, it had been identified that only 1% of voice contact was received during the period from 10pm to 6am, which was during the nightshift, and for commercial reasons it was proposed to streamline the operations model and cease operating a 24 hour service. I find it is clear from this information that the night operations team was the team affected and under consideration. Of the proposed affected individuals, the claimant was the only customer care operations manager.[24]By email dated 16 May 2023 it was confirmed to the claimant that she was nominated as an Employee Representative in the consultation process. In that capacity the claimant attended the Redundancy Proposal Rep Meeting on 18 May 2023. During the meeting the role of employee representative was explained and discussed as well as the consultation process and options for alternative roles for those affected, as set out in the meeting notes in the evidence bundle. The meeting notes confirm that the claimant raised queries about the night team work, work done by the outsource team, day shifts being different to night shifts and people choosing to work night shifts for different reasons and the options for alternative roles for those employees affected by the consultation process. The claimant asked questions in the consultation meeting relating to removal of the night allowance and costs savings. I find that the claimant had sufficient information available to her about the redundancy proposal to allow her to ask relevant questions about the proposal, some of the issues she raised relate to the bullet points shared with the Senior Leadership Team, which indicates sufficient information and detail was provided to affected employees including the claimant.[25]Mr Griffiths was not involved directly in the consultation process with the affected employees as it was agreed Ms Deveney was better placed to be involved, with her knowledge and understanding of the customer care department. HR Team members were directly involved with affected employees in the consultation process. Ms Deveney did not personally attend the collective consultation meetings as she felt this would allow people to speak more candidly in meetings. She did, however, work with the HR team during the consultation process to try and ensure that the questions raised in the process were answered.[26]An email was circulated to affected employees on 2 June 2023, attaching FAQs, which provided answers to some of the questions raised in the consultation process. In the FAQ documents, further information about the night team work was given, about the assessment made that the night team work could be done during operational hours, and about aligning the customer care operations team with competitors and the wider group. It was confirmed there was no plan to increase outsource headcount. Questions were answered in relation to redeployment and alternative roles.[27]The claimant attended the second collective consultation meeting on 31 May 2023. The meeting was largely focused on the FAQ document which was to be circulated to staff (that circulated on 2 June 2023); they also discussed practical issues regarding interviews and equipment.[28]The first individual consultation meeting with the claimant was held on the 24 May 2023. The notes of that meeting are limited but it is clear the meeting took place, the claimant was given a notification letter, redundancy package details and a vacancy list. The notes also indicate team structure was discussed. I accept Ms Dickinson’s evidence that the claimant raised issues and questions with her in that meeting about team members moving to day shift and the possible requirement for an additional operations manager. Ms Dickinson said she would discuss this with Ms Deveney.[29]By letter dated 24 May 2023 Ms Dickinson confirmed to the claimant the proposal to cease operating a 24-hour function within the respondent's customer care department with effect from the 30 June 2023 and invited the claimant to her second individual consultation meeting on 14 June 2023. Ms Dickinson also enclosed a list of vacant roles for the claimant’s consideration.[30]On 9 June 2023, the claimant emailed Ms Dickinson setting out her queries in relation to the redundancy proposal and the transfer of the team to days and querying why she was the only operations manager affected. Ms Dickinson confirmed by email on 9 June she would investigate the points raised ready for the claimant’s second individual consultation meeting.[31]The claimant attended her second individual consultation meeting on 14 June 2023. As with the first individual consultation meeting, the notes of the meeting are very limited and the claimant did not receive the meeting notes after the meeting, but it is clear from the evidence the meeting took place. Ms Dickinson discussed with the claimant the issues she had raised about team structure and resource. She explained to the claimant that there was no requirement for an additional Operation Manager role on the Customer Care day team and any team members transferred to days would be absorbed under the existing day team management structure. The claimant in that meeting said she would like to remain in the respondent’s employment and expressed interest in a PA role.[32]This was the first redundancy process that Ms Deveney had led and Ms Dickinson had been involved in. They accept their record keeping of the consultation meetings could have been better and there are things they learned from this process.[33]Whilst the claimant denied it was properly explained to her why the night team shift was being closed down, she did agree during oral evidence that the responses to questions which were posed in the employee representatives meeting on 18 May, showed the respondent considered the spread of work across the nightshift and across different teams. Whilst she says she was not shown any of the specific competitor data to be able to fully understand the respondent's decision to close the night team, I find she did have sufficient information made available to her to be able to understand the business rationale for the respondent's decision.[34]I find the claimant was given adequate warning of the proposed redundancy, noting that the claimant accepted during oral evidence that adequate warning was given.[35]Employees at risk of redundancy were offered alternative roles and were given priority over external candidates for like for like roles and roles for which they had the required skillset. A recruitment freeze was put in place.[36]The claimant accepts she was encouraged to apply for other roles. The claimant was offered a Team Leader role as part of the Customer Care day team. In her email to Rickyle Harrop dated 30 June 2023, the claimant confirms she does not want to take that role as it would mean her being managed by someone with the same or less experience than her; she also considered it a demotion and did not wish to take the role because of the pay reduction it would involve. During oral evidence she reiterated her reasons, being a £20,000 salary reduction, the loss of her private health cover and being managed by someone with less experience than her as well as working alongside and at the same level as those she used to manage.[37]The claimant was considered for an alternative role in procurement. Neil Bradford in his email of 29 and 30 June 2023 gave feedback on the claimant’s suitability for that possible alternative role in procurement, following a skills assessment call on 29 June. He felt she was unsuitable for the role, due to her lack of accounting or finance background. The claimant had discussed her lack of relevant skills with Mr Bradford and he had confirmed to her that he didn’t have the time to train her up.[38]An oral assessment was done for the role of PA to the Outdoors Director that the claimant had expressed an interest in. Natalie did the assessment call and Ms Dickinson obtained verbal feedback as to why the claimant was unsuitable for the role. The feedback from the Outdoors Director was that the claimant did not have the relevant experience he required for the role.[39]The claimant was invited to consider an operations manager role in Darby but declined that role on the basis that relocation was not an option for her.[40]As there were no alternative roles which the claimant wished to accept, her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy on 30 June 2023.[41]Of the employees on the night team put at risk of redundancy, 22 were made redundant and 33 were redeployed.[42]Ms Deveney spoke with the claimant on the last shift of the claimant’s employment. Ms Deveney wanted to say goodbye to the claimant and she explained to the claimant she was sorry the situation could not be different, but it was a business decision. The claimant found the conversation very emotional as she and Ms Deveney had had a good working relationship. I accept the claimant’s oral evidence that Ms Deveney told her Mr Griffiths had been asking her daily if they had found another job for the claimant. The claimant accepted during oral evidence that Mr Griffiths and Ms Deveney had done their best to find her an alternative role and to keep her in employment with the respondent and she accepted it was a business decision to terminate her employment and nothing they personally could do about it.[43]I find that Ms Deveney did not state there was no job for the claimant because the respondent had simply decided they wanted to let her go. I find that Ms Deveney had tried to be sympathetic to the claimant during the claimant’s last shift and I find, as set out above, the reason for dismissal was redundancy.[44]The claimant was offered the opportunity to appeal the decision by letter dated 3 July 2023. The deadline for her to appeal was extended by the respondent; Matt Wildblood in his email confirmed they would extend the timeframes and he would schedule an appeal hearing if she wished to appeal.[45]The claimant did not take this further opportunity to appeal. In her email dated 24 July 2023 to Matt Wildblood the claimant says, “The reason I didn’t appeal is because I was told that there was no job at my grade or experience for me.” In oral evidence the claimant said she did not appeal because Ms Deveney told her she and Mr Griffiths had tried their best to secure her another role but had not been able to do so and her dismissal was a business decision, so she thought there was no point appealing in the circumstances as she did not think the respondent would re employ her.Law
[46]Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 confers on employees the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Enforcement of the right is by way of complaint to the Tribunal under section 111. The employee must show that he was dismissed by the respondent under section 95. In this case the respondent admits that it dismissed the claimant on 30 June 2023.[47]Section 98 of the 1996 Act deals with the fairness of dismissals. Firstly, the employer must show that it had a potentially fair reason for the dismissal within section 98(2). Secondly, if the respondent shows that it had a potentially fair reason for the dismissal, the Tribunal must consider, without there being any burden of proof on either party, whether the respondent acted fairly or unfairly in dismissing for that reason.[48]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.[49]When section 98 refers to redundancy it is defined in section 139 ERA 1996. When considering redundancy under section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996, the starting point is the requirements of the business. A tribunal will not look behind the employer's decision or require it to justify how or why the diminished requirement has arisen, provided it is genuinely the reason for the dismissal: Moon v Homeworthy Furniture [1976] IRLR 298.[50]The leading case on establishing whether an employee has been dismissed by reason of redundancy is the EAT decision in Safeway Stores plc v Burrell [1997] IRLR 200, which was approved by the House of Lords in Murray and another v Foyle Meats Ltd (Northern Ireland) [1999] IRLR 562. In Safeway, the EAT formulated a three-stage test for applying section 139 of ERA 1996: Was the employee dismissed? If so, had the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind ceased or diminished (or did one of the other economic states of affairs in section 139(1) of ERA 1996 exist)? If so, was the dismissal of the employee caused wholly or mainly by the state of affairs identified at stage 2 above? Only if the answer at all three stages is "yes" will there be a redundancy dismissal.[51]Redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal (section 98(2) ERA).[52]An employer must act reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient to justify dismissing the employee (section 98(4), ERA 1996).[53]In considering the reasonableness of an employer’s decision to dismiss, a tribunal should not impose their own standards and decide whether had they been the employer, they would have acted differently. They must ask whether the employer’s decision to dismiss the employee by reason of redundancy fell within the band of reasonable responses: Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] IRLR 83.[54]The leading case on reasonableness in relation to redundancy is Polkey, in which the House of Lords held that the employer will normally not act reasonably unless it:(i) warns and consults employees, or their representatives, about the proposed redundancy;(ii) adopts a fair basis on which to select for redundancy; and(iii) considers suitable alternative employment within its organisation.[55]With regard to the pool for selection I am referred by the respondent to the cases of Thomas & Betts Manufacturing Limited v Harding (1980) IRLR 255 (CA); Hendy Banks City Print Limited v Fairbrother and others UKEAT /0691/04/TM; Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard (2012) IRLR 814 EAT; Alvis Vickers Ltd v Lloyd EAT 0785/04 and Green v A&I Fraser (Wholesale Fish Merchants) (1985) IRLR 55.[56]In relation to outsourcing I am referred by the respondent to Noble v House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd EAT/686/84.[57]An employer must make reasonable efforts in respect of searching for alternative employment: Quinton Hazell Ltd v WC Earl [1976] IRLR 296. Submissions[58]The claimant submits that there was a restructure but not a redundancy situation as there was no reduction in the workload for the night shift team and any decision was based on limited data on telephone calls during the nightshift between 10PM and 6AM for March and April 2023. The claimant says it was not made clear to affected employees why it was intended to close the night shift and in the absence of full information employees could not raise relevant queries and the consultation was in the circumstances not meaningful. The claimant submits there was no divide between the day and night shift teams and the day shift operations managers should have been included with her in a selection pool. She says there was no proper or reasonable consultation and that she was not given sufficient information about the redundancy process, or the alternative employment offered to her.[59]The respondent submits that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and there was a reduced requirement for employees on the admin night shift team to carry out work of a particular kind. They say those employees who moved to the day shifts could be absorbed and managed in the existing day shift teams and the claimant’s role was not transferrable to the day team. The respondent submits the chosen pool of the night shift team was reasonable and there was no obligation on them to broaden the pool to include day shift operations managers. The respondent submits the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses and followed a fair process, including reasonable consultation and reasonable efforts to offer alternative employment. Discussions and conclusion Reason for dismissal[60]It is agreed that the claimant was dismissed on 30 June 2023 and at the outset of the hearing when the list of issues was discussed the claimant agreed there was either a redundancy situation or a restructure.[61]The reason for the proposed redundancies was that there was a reduced requirement for the night shift team to carry out work of a particular kind. 22 members of the night shift Admin Team were made redundant and 33 were redeployed. Those who were redeployed to the Customer Care day shift teams were absorbed into existing teams and operations and managed by the existing day team customer Care operations managers.[62]The respondent had considered the volumes of work and concluded that the night team was no longer economically viable. They considered daily statistics available for the night team, carried out a competitor analysis and carried out and considered an analysis of the volume of emails, telephone calls and social media volumes for the night team. The evidence shows that the respondent gave full and proper consideration to the review of the Customer Care area of the business and the proposed redundancy situation. There was a genuine business rationale for the proposed change and the respondent made a valid business decision, following review analysis reports and meetings to discuss the position.[63]I find the claimant’s level of pay and the pay review in 2023 was not a factor in her being selected for redundancy.[64]I find that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy which is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(2). Procedural fairness[65]In oral evidence during the hearing, the claimant confirmed she agreed she was given adequate warning of the proposed redundancy.[66]During the collective consultation meetings, the respondent provided information about the impacted business areas and the reasons for the redundancy situation, the proposals, the potential impact on employees affected and the approach and the arrangements for redundancy and redeployment. The claimant was actively involved in the collective consultation as employee representative and in that capacity raised issues relating to the redundancy proposal.[67]Of the proposed affected individuals, the claimant was the only customer care operations manager. The claimant contends the redundancy pool should have included all 5 Customer Care operations managers (4 of them working days and her on nights). I find that the respondent genuinely applied its mind to the issue of the pool and following their analysis of work volumes and work spread across teams, they considered the night team as separate from the day teams and selected the pool on that basis. I find that the choice of pool was within the range of reasonable responses; it is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own view as to what the pool should have been.[68]Whilst the claimant was not given specific detailed information about the calls and work volumes from the data analysis the respondent caried out, she was give sufficient information about the redundancy proposals and the respondent’s reasons for the situation arising as is set out in the written announcement dated 10 May 2023, which was also delivered orally. The claimant was able to raise questions in her employee representative role and did so in relation to work volumes, work spread, shift patterns and the redundancy process including alternative roles. Answers were given in the meeting on 18 My 2023 and further responses to questions and issues were provided in the FAQ document circulated on 2 June 2023. The claimant had further opportunity to raise any other questions, issues or requests for information in her individual consultation meetings. She raised issues and queries in her email dated 9 June 2023 and the respondent provided responses to those during the claimant's second individual consultation meeting on 14 June 2023.[69]Whilst the respondent's record keeping of the individual consultation meetings was very limited, I am satisfied from the documentary and witness evidence that the individual consultation meetings took place and the claimant was given reasonable opportunity to raise issues, questions and queries and the respondent dealt with and responded to those she did raise. I find the respondent took reasonable steps to keep affected employees, including the claimant, informed during the consultation process and to respond to queries and issues raised.[70]The redundancy process involving the Customer Care night shift team was the first redundancy process Ms Deveney had led. She accepts the respondent ccould have been more diligent in documenting the process and the consultations and accepts the respondent can learn from that process. Despite the failings in keeping detailed written records, I find that the respondent nevertheless followed a fair process.[71]The respondent made reasonable efforts to help the Claimant search for alternative employment. The respondent put a recruitment freeze in place and employees at risk of redundancy were given priority over external candidates for like for like roles to theirs and roles for which they had the required skillset.[72]The claimant was considered for a procurement role outside of the Customer Care Team but was unsuccessful as she did not have the required skillset and experience. She was considered for a PA role but was unsuccessful in obtaining that role based on her skills and experience. A Team Leader role was available on the Day Team in Customer Care and was proposed to the claimant, but she did not wish to take that role for financial reasons and because she considered it a demotion and did not wish to work alongside those she had previously managed or be managed by those who she felt may not have as much experience as her. The claimant declined an Operations Manager role in Darby as she did not want to relocate.[73]The claimant had available to her full and proper information on which to make a decision about her position including alternative roles offered to her. She acknowledges that Ms Deveney and Mr Griffiths tried hard to keep her in employment. The respondent made reasonable efforts to provide alternative employment for the claimant throughout the consultation period and up until her dismissal on 30 June 2023.[74]The claimant was afforded a right of appeal against the dismissal decision. She did not formally appeal but raised issues with the respondent by email. The respondent then confirmed to her that they would extend the deadline for her to appeal (which had by that date expired) should she wish to appeal but the claimant did not wish to pursue any appeal. I find that the respondent acted reasonably in these circumstances.Conclusions
[75]The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The respondent's decision to dismiss the Claimant fell within the band of reasonable responses available to it. The respondent made a considered decision in relation to the proposed redundancies and the choice of pool fell within the range of reasonable responses. The respondent carried out a collective and individual consultation process which addressed all issues relevant to the redundancy proposal; they responded to representations made and questions raised by affected employees during that process. Whilst the written record keeping of the individual consultation process was limited, the process was nevertheless conducted fairly. The respondent took reasonable steps to keep the claimant in employment. They gave the claimant extended opportunity to appeal the dismissal decision. The evidence shows the respondent acted reasonably throughout.[76]I find therefore that the claimant was fairly dismissed. Employment Judge Fearon 31 August 2024