Claimant v Harrods Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was genuine redundancy following a business reorganisation. The redundancy process was fair, with reasonable selection criteria applied objectively. The claimant lost a tie-break interview by one point, and there was no evidence the redundancy was a sham or influenced by any ulterior motive.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not 'designated' to carry out health and safety activities as required by s100(1)(a) ERA 1996. His health and safety duties were part of his ordinary job role, not a special designation beyond normal duties. Furthermore, even if designated, health and safety activities played no part in the dismissal decision.
While the tribunal accepted that some of the claimant's communications amounted to protected disclosures, it found that such disclosures were not the reason, or even a contributory reason, for the dismissal. The sole reason for dismissal was redundancy following a genuine business reorganisation.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Harrods as an Out of Hours Duty Manager from December 2017 until dismissed for redundancy on 4 October 2020, earning approximately £50,000 annually. Following the Covid-19 pandemic which closed the Knightsbridge store and resulted in £425 million lost sales, Harrods implemented a major reorganisation affecting approximately 700 employees. The claimant's department reduced Out of Hours Duty Managers from three to two positions. In a selection process using five objective criteria, the claimant tied with the other Duty Manager, Mr Sullivan, at 12 points each. A tie-break interview resulted in Mr Sullivan scoring one point higher. The claimant was placed at risk on 30 June 2020, underwent collective and individual consultation, and was dismissed effective 4 October 2020 after an unsuccessful appeal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the redundancy was genuine, arising from a demonstrable business need following pandemic-related financial losses. The selection process was fair, using reasonable objective criteria and a proper tie-break procedure. The claimant's whistleblowing claim failed because, while some communications constituted protected disclosures, they played no part in the dismissal decision. The health and safety dismissal claim failed because the claimant was not 'designated' for health and safety activities beyond his ordinary duties.
Practical note
A claimant alleging whistleblowing dismissal cannot succeed merely by showing temporal coincidence between raising concerns and redundancy; they must prove protected disclosures actually caused or materially influenced the dismissal, which is difficult where the redundancy process is objectively fair and part of a genuine large-scale reorganisation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2206663/2020
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Harrods Ltd
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Out of Hours Duty Manager
- Salary band
- £50,000–£60,000
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No