Claimant v Life Sciences Hub Wales Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to multiple procedural failures: (1) The respondent placed the claimant in a pool of one without considering whether other employees should be included and without consulting on pooling in advance; (2) The respondent failed to apply its mind to voluntary redundancy despite its own policy allowing it, particularly when another employee (Ms Virgill) was seeking to exit; (3) The respondent failed to consider 'bumping' Ms Virgill's role to the claimant; (4) The respondent failed to pause external recruitment during consultation or offer vacant roles at the end of the process. These cumulative failures meant the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Finance & Accounts Assistant from December 2019. In February 2024, while on sick leave, she was told her role was at risk due to budget constraints. She was placed in a pool of one. The respondent held four consultation meetings and offered her six vacant posts in February/March 2024, which she did not apply for as she wanted to save her existing job. She was dismissed for redundancy on 2 May 2024. Another employee, Ms Virgill, was seeking voluntary redundancy at the same time but was told it was not available. Ms Virgill's post remained unfilled from April 2024 until she left in August 2024.
Decision
The tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation but the dismissal was unfair due to multiple procedural failures. The respondent failed to consult before deciding on a pool of one, failed to consider whether other employees should be in the pool, failed to apply its mind to voluntary redundancy or bumping Ms Virgill's role to the claimant, and failed to pause external recruitment. No Polkey or contributory conduct reductions were appropriate. The case was listed for a remedy hearing.
Practical note
When selecting a pool of one for redundancy, employers must consult before making that decision and actively consider wider pooling, voluntary redundancy, bumping, and pausing external recruitment — failing to explore these options can render the dismissal unfair even where a genuine redundancy situation exists.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1602469/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Finance & Accounts Assistant
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No