Claimant v Emma Wilson Urban Spa Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while there was a genuine redundancy situation due to reduced therapist hours and revenue, the employer failed to carry out a fair procedure. The claimant was not warned or consulted about the redundancy, was not given any explanation of the selection criteria used to choose her over Alex, and the only meeting took place on the last day of employment when the decision was already made. This rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair.
The claim was dismissed because the claimant had already been paid her statutory redundancy payment by the respondent.
Facts
The claimant worked as a part-time receptionist (17 hours per week) at the respondent's spa in Tulse Hill from October 2019 until 1 February 2023. She was dismissed by email on 4 January 2023 with four weeks' notice due to stated need to reduce costs following a reduction in therapist hours. She was selected for redundancy over another receptionist (Alex) without any consultation or explanation of selection criteria. Two weeks after her dismissal, the respondent hired another receptionist (Fransys) for Friday work and additional hours. The claimant never received a written contract of employment.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because although there was a genuine redundancy situation, the employer failed to conduct any meaningful consultation, did not explain the selection criteria, and the only meeting took place on the last day of employment when dismissal was already decided. The tribunal rejected the Polkey argument, finding proper consultation might have resulted in the claimant retaining hours. The claimant was awarded 13 weeks' pay (£2,302.82) plus 2 weeks' pay (£354.28) for failure to provide written particulars, totalling £2,657.10.
Practical note
Even in a small business with a genuine redundancy situation, failure to consult the affected employee and explain selection criteria before making a dismissal decision will render the dismissal procedurally unfair.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 15.0 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2304167/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Receptionist
- Salary band
- Under £15,000
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No