Claimant v Crussh Retail Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant's demotion from area manager to store manager and placement in the Bankside store amounted to fundamental breaches of contract by way of unilateral variation. The roles were fundamentally different, and the change was a material demotion. The claimant resigned on 3 December 2023 in response to these breaches, and the short period of correspondence did not amount to affirmation of the variation.

The tribunal found that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy under s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996, as fewer employees were needed to do the claimant's work following restructuring. The respondent wrongly assessed that the claimant was not redundant and offered no equivalent alternative role. The store manager role was materially different and amounted to a demotion.

The tribunal found that the claimant was effectively redundant by 20 October 2023 as a result of the respondent's restructure. The respondent misdirected itself in concluding the claimant was not redundant. The need for the area manager role had diminished due to new suppliers and changed working methods.

The tribunal found the claimant received what he was entitled to receive. His contract entitled him to six weeks' notice, which was paid. The claim for additional notice pay was not made out.

The claimant's complaints regarding alleged non-compliance with grievance procedures and ACAS guidelines were not well founded. The tribunal found no formal grievance was raised, and the correspondence from Mrs Riddell did not amount to a grievance outcome.