Cases→8001647/2024

Claimant v Croft Communications Limited

14 March 2025Before Employment Judge N M HosieScotlandremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent failed to establish a genuine redundancy situation. The tribunal also found that even if redundancy was genuine, dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair: the decision to dismiss was predetermined, there was no meaningful consultation, no proper investigation into alternative employment, and the process was not within the band of reasonable responses.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a Unified Communications Engineer, working primarily remotely from Scotland on service desk work and onsite MOD contracts. In January 2024 he moved to work under Mr Benson. On 1 May 2024, before any consultation, Mr Benson emailed HR stating he had decided to 'manage Mike Legge out of the business'. On 17 May the claimant was invited to a 'catch-up' meeting and told his role was at risk of redundancy. He was dismissed on 3 June 2024 for redundancy. He appealed unsuccessfully. The claimant maintained there was work available for him on the service desk and on upcoming MOD contracts.

Decision

The tribunal found the respondent failed to establish a genuine redundancy situation, with insufficient evidence of diminished work requirements. The tribunal also found that even if redundancy was genuine, the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair: the decision was predetermined, consultation was not meaningful, alternative employment was not properly investigated, and the process fell outside the band of reasonable responses. A remedy hearing was ordered.

Practical note

An employer cannot simply assert a redundancy situation exists without credible supporting evidence, and predetermining dismissal before consultation renders the process fundamentally unfair even if some redundancy might have existed.

Legal authorities cited

Safeway Stores Plc v Burrell [1997] ICR 523Kingwell & Others v Elizabeth Bradley Designs Ltd EAT/0661/02Murray & Another v Foyle Meats Ltd (Northern Ireland) [1999] IRLR 562Moon v Homeworthy Furniture (Northern) Ltd [1976] IRLR 298Alvis Vickers Ltd v Lloyd EAT/0785/04Vokes Ltd v Bear [1973] IRLR 363Quinton Hazell Ltd v WC Earl [1976] IRLR 296Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98(2)ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.139(1)(b)ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
8001647/2024
Decision date
14 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Croft Communications Limited
Sector
telecoms
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Unified Communications Engineer
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →