Cases8001155/2025

Claimant v Voneus Broadband Ltd

23 December 2025Before Employment Judge S MacLeanScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy, a potentially fair reason. The respondent followed a fair consultation process, the selection pool (standalone Head of Build roles) was reasonable, the claimant was offered alternative roles which she declined to apply for, and the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant's argument that dismissal was a pretext following her grievance was not supported by the evidence.

Facts

The claimant was employed as Head of Build-Scotland from March 2024, promoted from Building Support Manager. In summer 2024, network build activity declined due to reduced investor funding and employees were temporarily redeployed. The claimant raised a grievance in August 2024 alleging bullying, which was not upheld. In February 2025, the respondent commenced a collective redundancy affecting 93 roles including all regional Head of Build positions. The claimant was consulted, offered alternative roles but declined to apply, believing she would not be treated fairly. She was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 28 March 2025.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found the reason for dismissal was genuine redundancy due to cessation of network build activity caused by loss of investor funding. The respondent followed a fair consultation process, reasonably selected standalone Head of Build roles for redundancy, offered alternative employment which the claimant chose not to pursue, and acted within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant's argument that dismissal was a pretext following her grievance was not supported by evidence.

Practical note

A genuine redundancy exercise affecting multiple roles can withstand a challenge that dismissal was pretextual, provided fair consultation occurs and alternative roles are genuinely offered, even if the employee declines to apply for them due to concerns about impartiality that are never tested.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98Employment Rights Act 1996 s.139(1)(b)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(4)

Case details

Case number
8001155/2025
Decision date
23 December 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
telecoms
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Head of Build-Scotland
Salary band
£80,000–£100,000
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No