Claimant v G D Hair Limited

Outcome

Facts

Claimant was employed as a standalone colour technician in a small hair salon. The respondent experienced a downturn in demand for colour work due to cost of living pressures, and determined it needed multi-skilled staff who could do both cutting and colouring to optimize working time. The claimant was the only employee who performed solely colouring work and had periods of downtime. The respondent put the claimant at risk of redundancy, held two consultation meetings offering alternatives (working Tuesdays, multi-skilled role including cutting), which the claimant declined as she did not enjoy cutting. The claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy on 22 May 2024 after a two-week consultation period.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The reason was genuine redundancy due to diminished requirement for standalone colour technician work. The respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses by: consulting the claimant adequately over two meetings, reasonably placing her in a pool of one as the only standalone colour technician, and offering alternative roles which she declined. The lack of a successful appeal process did not render the dismissal unfair in the circumstances.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited