Claimant v Mitie Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation existed. The business restructure was legitimate, the pool selection was reasonable, the consultation process was fair, and selection criteria were objectively applied. The dismissals were within the band of reasonable responses.
The tribunal concluded the claimants were not dismissed because they were union members or had used union services. The first claimant was selected because she did not apply for alternative roles after sending an email the respondent reasonably understood as opting out. The second claimant failed at interview and did not apply for other roles.
The tribunal found both claimants were entitled to broadly comparable Agenda for Change (AFC) terms including enhanced redundancy pay. The respondent failed to pay the contractual redundancy entitlement, constituting a breach of contract.
The respondent failed to provide written statements of employment particulars as required by s.1 ERA 1996. The first claimant received inaccurate terms that omitted AFC enhancements. The second claimant received no proper statement at all. This was a deliberate policy by the respondent not to document AFC terms.
Facts
Two service managers at St George's Hospital were dismissed for redundancy in March 2023. Both had been in dispute with their employer over entitlement to NHS Agenda for Change (AFC) enhanced terms. The respondent argued AFC enhancements were limited to certain terms (pay, overtime, holiday), but the claimants believed they were entitled to full broadly comparable AFC terms including enhanced redundancy pay. A business restructure removed geographical wing-based management roles and replaced them with function-specific roles (cleaning/catering) across the hospital. Seven managers were put at risk; three left as redundant including both claimants.
Decision
The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and fairly conducted — the business case was legitimate, pool selection reasonable, and procedure fair. The dismissals were not because of trade union membership, use of union services, or previous disputes. However, the tribunal found both claimants were contractually entitled to broadly comparable AFC terms including enhanced redundancy pay, which the respondent had failed to pay. The respondent also failed to provide accurate written particulars of employment.
Practical note
Employers providing services to the NHS who incorporate 'broadly comparable' Agenda for Change terms must be clear about which terms apply and provide accurate written particulars — a policy of not documenting enhanced terms will breach s.1 ERA 1996 and may lead to tribunal findings that all AFC terms (including costly redundancy enhancements) apply by default.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301230/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Mitie Limited
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Service Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No