Claimant v Good Relations Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair on multiple grounds: the consultation process was rushed through too quickly (from 24 April to 10 May 2024); the second consultation meeting was held when the claimant was unwell with Covid; and crucially, there was insufficient consultation at a formative stage. The claimant was not consulted before the selection process was designed and scoring carried out, meaning he could not realistically influence the decision by the time he was consulted. Although the reason for dismissal (redundancy) was fair and the selection criteria were reasonable, the rushed process and lack of early consultation meant no reasonable employer would have handled it this way.
Facts
The claimant was an Associate Director at a PR agency employed from January 2022. In March 2024, the respondent faced significant revenue shortfall and decided to make redundancies including one of four Associate Directors. The four were scored against selection criteria by their respective line managers. The claimant scored lowest (35/56) and was informed on 24 April 2024 he was provisionally selected for redundancy - the first he knew of any redundancies. Two brief consultation meetings followed (30 April and 8 May 2024), with the second held remotely when the claimant had Covid. He was dismissed on 10 May 2024. The claimant has a hearing impairment requiring hearing aids but managed without additional adjustments during employment.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was for a fair reason (redundancy) and the selection criteria and pool were reasonable. However, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because: the consultation process was rushed (only 2 weeks from first notification to dismissal); the final consultation meeting proceeded when the claimant was unwell with Covid; and critically, there was no consultation at a formative stage before the selection process was designed and scoring completed. By the time the claimant was consulted, he could not realistically influence the outcome. A 90% Polkey reduction applies after 4 weeks as a fair process would likely have reached the same result.
Practical note
Even where the reason for dismissal and selection criteria are fair, rushing the consultation process and failing to consult employees before designing the redundancy selection process can render a dismissal unfair, particularly where the employer appears invested in a pre-determined outcome.
Adjustments
90% deduction from compensatory award after the first 4 weeks. Tribunal found that with a fair process starting 4 weeks earlier, there was only a 10% chance the claimant would have avoided dismissal. The selection criteria were reasonable, the scoring gap was substantial (6 points to next colleague, 10 to the next), and it was unlikely adjustments to the process would have changed the outcome given the financial pressures.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6007076/2024
- Decision date
- 11 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Associate Director
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No