Claimant v Record U.K. Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to genuinely consider the appropriate pool for redundancy selection. The respondent placed the claimant in a pool of one without actively considering whether others, particularly Mr Elrich (the commercial assistant in the team of two), should have been included. The respondent did not act within the band of reasonable responses as it did not genuinely apply its mind to the appropriate pool.
The deduction of two days' holiday pay was authorised by a relevant provision in the claimant's contract of employment, specifically clause 12.4 which permitted the respondent to recover and deduct salary in respect of holidays taken but not accrued on termination.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Senior Quantity Surveyor from January 2021 to March 2024. In February 2024, he was placed at risk of redundancy as the only person in the pool, and was dismissed on 20 March 2024. The respondent's stated reason was redundancy due to cost-saving measures, with the claimant's tasks to be redistributed to others including Mr Elrich (commercial assistant), Mr Burns, and Mr Greenlees. The claimant argued the real reason was performance concerns informally raised between September-December 2023, and that Mr Elrich should have been included in the redundancy pool.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent failed to genuinely consider the appropriate redundancy pool. While a pool of one can be fair, the respondent did not actively consider including others, particularly Mr Elrich who worked in a standalone team of two with the claimant and whose role had overlap with the claimant's duties. The tribunal rejected that performance was the real reason for dismissal, accepting redundancy was genuine, but found the pooling process flawed. A 25% Polkey reduction was applied as there was a 75% chance the claimant would have remained employed had a fair procedure been followed.
Practical note
When selecting a redundancy pool, employers must actively and genuinely consider all potentially affected roles with overlapping duties, even where the dismissed employee has a unique job title—failure to do so renders the dismissal procedurally unfair.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 21.1 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
Tribunal found 75% chance claimant would have remained in employment had a fair procedure been followed. Reduction of 25% applied because there was not a 100% chance the claimant would have been made redundant in a procedurally secure process, considering the appropriate pooling would likely have included Mr Elrich and the application of selection criteria.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4106401/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Quantity Surveyor
- Salary band
- £50,000–£60,000
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No