Claimant v Global Voices Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found redundancy was the reason for dismissal but the process was unfair: the claimant was not consulted at a formative stage, was not given sufficient information to participate meaningfully, and was effectively told the decision was already made. However, applying the Polkey principle, the outcome would have been the same even with a fair process, so only a basic award was granted.
The claimant was unfavourably treated when told not to attend a client meeting on 1 November 2024 because of her disability-related absence. Although the respondent had a legitimate aim (protecting her recovery), the means were not proportionate — a brief discussion with the claimant about her capability to attend would have been more appropriate than a directive not to attend.
The claimant perceived the email from Ms Speirs as violating her dignity, but the tribunal found it was not objectively reasonable for her to perceive it that way. The email was polite, diplomatic, and intended to support her, not to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tests under section 15 and section 26 are different, and this claim did not meet the threshold for harassment.
Facts
The claimant, Global Head of Governance & Quality, was diagnosed with cancer in June 2024 and took periods of illness absence. During restructuring in late 2024, the respondent proposed making her role redundant and offering her a different 'Head of New Technology' role focussed on business development without team management responsibilities. On 1 November 2024, while on sick leave, she was told not to attend a client video meeting despite her wish to do so. She declined the alternative role and was dismissed for redundancy on 22 April 2025 after 17 years' service.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was for a genuine redundancy reason but procedurally unfair due to lack of early consultation and information sharing. However, applying Polkey, the outcome would have been the same, so only a basic award (less statutory redundancy already paid) was granted. The tribunal also found section 15 disability discrimination in the email directing the claimant not to attend the meeting, awarding £3,000 injury to feelings. The harassment claim failed as the claimant's perception was not objectively reasonable.
Practical note
Even well-intentioned protective measures during sickness absence can amount to disability discrimination if not proportionately implemented — employers should discuss capability and options with the employee rather than imposing restrictions.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Adjustments
The tribunal found that even had there been a fair redundancy process, the claimant would have been presented with the same options, made the same choice not to accept the alternative role, and been dismissed on the same date. Therefore no compensatory award was made.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000695/2025
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Global Head of Governance & Quality / Head of EMEA and Governance
- Service
- 17 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor