Claimant v Millbrook Healthcare Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to consider the claimant for suitable alternative employment (a Project Manager role) that arose during his notice period. The respondent did not notify the claimant of the vacancy, did not consult with him about his suitability, and did not involve the hiring manager who knew the claimant's work. The decision not to shortlist him was taken by HR without objective comparison to other candidates and without proper documentation. These actions fell outside the band of reasonable responses.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Senior Business Analyst from May 2022 until dismissed for redundancy in July 2024. The respondent faced severe financial difficulties and made 24 redundancies in Central Services, including both workers in the claimant's Project Management Office team. During his three-month garden leave, a Project Manager role was advertised externally. The claimant applied but was not shortlisted. The respondent did not notify him of the vacancy despite having committed to helping him find alternative employment, did not consult him about his suitability, and did not involve the hiring manager who knew his work on a successful project.
Decision
The tribunal accepted the redundancy was genuine and the consultation process was fair. However, it found the dismissal unfair because the respondent unreasonably failed to properly consider the claimant for the Project Manager role. The decision not to shortlist was taken by HR without objective comparison, without consulting the claimant, without involving the hiring manager, and was poorly documented. The tribunal applied an 80% Polkey reduction, finding the claimant had only a 20% chance of securing the role if properly considered.
Practical note
Employers facing redundancy must take proactive steps to consider at-risk employees for suitable alternative roles that arise during notice periods, including meaningful consultation, objective comparison with external candidates, and involvement of relevant hiring managers.
Adjustments
Tribunal found there was an 80% likelihood the claimant would have been dismissed for redundancy even if a fair procedure had been followed in considering him for the Project Manager role. This was because there were four other external candidates, and the claimant would have had to go through a competitive interview process. The tribunal assessed the claimant had a 20% chance of success at interview.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6012544/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Business Analyst
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister