Claimant v ADT Fire and Security plc
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent established redundancy as the reason for dismissal. The respondent conducted an orthodox redundancy selection process in which the claimant scored lowest. The claimant's challenges to the process, including arguments about scoring accuracy and work distribution, were either not properly evidenced, not put to witnesses, or did not demonstrate unfairness. The tribunal concluded the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy as sufficient reason for dismissal under s98(4) ERA 1996.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a sales coordinator from June 2011 until his dismissal by redundancy on 12 April 2024, with over 12 years' service. The respondent announced a reduction from 7 to 5 sales coordinators due to a projected 7% decrease in workload. The claimant scored lowest in a selection matrix applied to the team. He was consulted on 14 and 18 March 2024, dismissed shortly thereafter, and his appeal on 5 April 2024 was unsuccessful. The claimant argued his scoring was inaccurate due to factors including excess holiday carried over from Covid, work distribution issues, and alleged deliberate undermining by management.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the respondent established redundancy as the potentially fair reason for dismissal and conducted an orthodox redundancy selection process. The claimant's challenges to the scoring and process were either not properly evidenced, raised too late, or not put to the relevant witnesses in cross-examination. The tribunal concluded the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy as sufficient reason for dismissal.
Practical note
In redundancy dismissals, a litigant in person must put their case to witnesses in cross-examination, not raise serious allegations for the first time in closing submissions, and tribunals will not accept that relative underperformance requires prior warning before being used in redundancy scoring.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305685/2024
- Decision date
- 24 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- sales coordinator
- Service
- 13 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No