Claimant v First Thought (Equine) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. First Thought failed to adequately consult with Mrs Foster - she was excluded from the 15th February meeting and the 22nd February meeting was not meaningful consultation as the decision was already made. The scoring exercise used to consider 'bumping' was flawed, particularly in assessing versatility and motivation, and Mrs Foster was never informed of it or given opportunity to challenge it.
Facts
Mrs Foster worked as an Industrial Sewing Machinist for First Thought (Equine) Ltd, making equine products. From Autumn 2022 she worked exclusively on girths due to high demand. By late 2023 sales declined sharply and orders reduced to mainly internal 'stock orders'. In February 2024, First Thought decided to make the three-person 'girth department' redundant. They conducted a scoring exercise of all 21 employees ostensibly to consider 'bumping' high scorers into other roles. Mrs Foster scored low and was dismissed on 28th February 2024 with notice ending 29th March 2024. She was not meaningfully consulted and was unaware of the scoring exercise.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (redundancy) but was procedurally unfair due to inadequate consultation and a flawed scoring process that unfairly assessed Mrs Foster's versatility and motivation. However, a 100% Polkey reduction was applied because even with a fair process she would inevitably have been dismissed given the genuine redundancy situation and the unlikelihood that she would have been 'bumped' into another role. She was awarded only the basic award of £73.83 (after deducting redundancy payment received).
Practical note
Even where a dismissal is found procedurally unfair, a claimant may receive minimal compensation if the tribunal is satisfied there was a 100% chance of fair dismissal in any event through proper Polkey analysis.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 0.1 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
100% chance that claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. There was a genuine redundancy situation, the decision to make the girth department redundant was reasonable, and even with fair scoring Mrs Foster would not have achieved a high enough score to trigger 'bumping' consideration. Even if she had, the tribunal found it unlikely the respondent would have pursued bumping given the complexity and urgency of the situation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6003943/2024
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Industrial Sewing Machinist
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep