The issues were agreed at the start of the hearing as follows:
2.1 Has the Respondent proved that there was a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(1) ERA? The Respondent relies on redundancy or some other substantial reason.
2.2 Did the Respondent act reasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal?
2.3 If the dismissal was unfair: what is the percentage chance that but for procedural or other default, the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event.
Although the Claimant had suggested that the process was targeted at her, and that her dismissal was related to her past allegations of bullying, there was no evidence that anyone involved in the process had an ulterior motive.
The judge accepted that the Respondent had established that redundancy was the genuine reason and that the Respondent adopted a method of selection that was fair in general terms and was applied reasonably.
The judge did, however, make an award under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, on the basis that the Respondent breached s.1 of the ERA by failing to provide the Claimant with a written statement of initial employment particulars.
It was the judgment of the Tribunal that the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal succeeded, but that no compensatory award should be made. The Claimant was awarded £629.52 pursuant to s.38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Download the case here
