Claimant v NICE Systems UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while a redundancy situation existed (the business required a Director-level role with different skills in the US, not a manager-level technical role in London), the claimant's dismissal was not wholly or mainly attributed to redundancy. Instead, it was attributed to the respondent's perception that the claimant was a 'flight risk' (likely to leave) following his '50% quitting' comment, and concerns about his interpersonal skills and communication style. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was therefore not by reason of redundancy and was unfair. The tribunal also found significant procedural flaws: the replacement Director was recruited before consultation began, the claimant was not invited to apply for the new role, and consultation was on a fait accompli rather than a genuine proposal.
Facts
Claimant employed by software company from 2011 as Cloud Information Security Manager, working remotely from home since 2016. In January 2023, new line manager (Joe Larkin) took over and claimant told him he was '50% quitting' due to dissatisfaction with remuneration. Claimant's baby born May 2023. In April 2023, respondent decided to create US-based Director role (at $200k vs claimant's £80k) to provide more senior customer-facing support following business merger. Director recruited and offer made before redundancy consultation began. Claimant placed at risk on return from paternity leave in June 2023, dismissed in July 2023 after three consultation meetings. Claimant also had ongoing dispute about hybrid working requirements (two days per week in office) which he had not complied with since 2016.
Decision
Tribunal found unfair dismissal. While a genuine redundancy situation existed (need for Director-level role with greater customer-facing responsibilities in US, not manager-level technical role in London), the claimant's dismissal was not attributed to that redundancy. Instead, it was attributed to respondent's perception that claimant was a 'flight risk' likely to leave, and concerns about his direct communication style and interpersonal skills. Significant procedural flaws included recruiting replacement before consultation and not inviting claimant to apply for new role. Tribunal applied Polkey deduction of nine months, finding claimant would have been dismissed fairly by April 2024 considering various scenarios (redundancy, flexible working dispute, conduct issues, voluntary resignation). No contributory conduct reduction applied as no blameworthy conduct found.
Practical note
An employer cannot lawfully dismiss for redundancy when the real reason is concern that the employee might resign and dissatisfaction with their interpersonal style, even if a genuine redundancy situation also exists — causation under s.139 ERA requires the dismissal to be wholly or mainly attributable to the redundancy situation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2216283/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Manager, Cloud Information Security, Cloud Operations
- Salary band
- £80,000–£100,000
- Service
- 12 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No