Claimant v OH Assist Limited t/a Optima Health
Outcome
Individual claims
Withdrawn by claimant at the hearing after hearing the evidence and accepting that the protected acts were not a reason for his treatment.
The tribunal found the dismissal was for a genuine redundancy situation arising from a diminution in the need for the claimant's unique senior data insights work. The decision to place the claimant in a pool of one was within the range of reasonable responses given his unique and more senior role compared to the reporting team. The consultation was meaningful, the claimant was given the opportunity to raise issues (including pooling) and the respondent genuinely considered alternatives. The appeal process was fair. The dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
The parties agreed by consent that the respondent had erroneously deducted one day's gross pay from sums due to the claimant.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Senior Data Insights Analyst from November 2019. His unique specialist role involved interpreting data and statistical analysis. Due to automation and diminishing client requirements, the work he was employed to do had significantly reduced. He had been given more junior reporting tasks to fill his time. In 2024, the respondent needed cost savings. Mr Harrison identified the claimant's unique role as at risk of redundancy and placed him in a pool of one. The claimant was consulted, raised concerns about pooling and the percentage of work disappearing, but ultimately accepted the rationale. He was dismissed for redundancy and his appeal heard by Mr Paxton was unsuccessful.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was for a genuine redundancy arising from diminution of work. The decision to place the claimant in a pool of one was within the range of reasonable responses given his unique senior role, distinct from the junior reporting team. Consultation was meaningful and the claimant accepted the pooling rationale when explained during the process. The appeal was fairly conducted. The unfair dismissal claim failed. The victimisation claim was withdrawn. A small breach of contract claim for wrongly deducted pay succeeded by consent.
Practical note
A pool of one can be fair in redundancy where the employee's role is genuinely unique and substantially more senior than others doing superficially similar work, even if consultation on pooling does not occur before the process begins, provided the rationale is explained and accepted during consultation.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4100026/2025
- Decision date
- 15 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Data Insights Analyst
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep