Cases1300413/2024

Claimant v Auriga Services Limited

18 June 2025Before Employment Judge KenwardBirmingham

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£11,359

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissals to be procedurally and substantively unfair on the basis that the pool of selection used was too narrow (limited to the three Grant Assessors in the STTF team rather than all 13 Grant Assessors across teams) and the extent to which the Respondent had warned and consulted the Claimants was inadequate.

Facts

Two long-serving Grant Assessors (23 years and 10 years' service) were dismissed for redundancy when funding for the Severn Trent Trust Fund ended in September 2023. The Respondent limited the redundancy pool to the three Grant Assessors in the STTF team, despite there being 13 Grant Assessors across multiple trust fund teams doing substantially the same work. Both Claimants had recently been trained on and worked in another trust fund team (UUTF). The tribunal found at the liability hearing that the dismissals were unfair due to an inappropriately narrow selection pool and inadequate consultation.

Decision

The tribunal awarded Jane Manning £5,134.26 and Stella Aston £6,224.80 for unfair dismissal, comprising compensatory awards only (no basic award as redundancy payments had already been made). Awards covered six months' loss of earnings, pension loss and loss of statutory rights, with full loss for three months then reduced loss for three months reflecting likely earnings in alternative employment. A 20% Polkey reduction was applied reflecting the chance the Claimants would still have been selected for redundancy in a fair process.

Practical note

When making redundancies, employers must carefully consider whether to pool employees doing substantially similar work across different teams or projects, particularly where employees have been trained on and performed work outside their immediate team — an artificially narrow pool will render the dismissal unfair.

Award breakdown

Compensatory award£5,134

Adjustments

Polkey reduction20%

The tribunal assessed that if a fair redundancy process had been followed with all 13 Grant Assessors in the pool, the Claimants had a 20% chance of still being selected for redundancy based on their experience and length of service

Legal authorities cited

Software 2000 Limited v Andrews [2007] ICR 825Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Cooper Contracting Ltd v Lindsey [2016] ICR D3

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.123(4)ERA 1996 s.112-124AERA 1996 s.123(1)ERA 1996 s.122(4)

Case details

Case number
1300413/2024
Decision date
18 June 2025
Hearing type
remedy
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
charity
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Grants Co-ordinator / Grant Assessor

Claimant representation

Represented
No