Claimant v Asda Stores Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent failed to establish redundancy as the reason for dismissal under section 139 ERA 1996. The employer did not prove the requirement for employees to do work of a particular kind had diminished. The consultation was deficient, with no meaningful written explanation of the restructure, no reasoned response to the claimant's detailed representations, and the decision appeared predetermined. The process fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal carefully assessed the claimant's holiday entitlement year by year from 2019-2022, taking into account Covid-19 carry-over provisions allowing unused leave to be carried forward for 24 months. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence about actual days taken over the respondent's inaccurate planners. The claimant was found to have 61 days outstanding, less 5 days paid, leaving 56 days unpaid at termination.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Asda for 16 years. In October 2021 he was appointed to the newly created permanent role of George Future Lead, Ecommerce, with a retention bonus payable in April 2023. On 7 September 2022, without prior warning, his manager Emma Ford informed him the role was redundant as the team (now 400 strong) had been upskilled and the SME role was no longer needed. After five consultation meetings where the claimant presented detailed representations about why his role was still essential, he was dismissed on 19 October 2022. The claimant also claimed 56 days' unpaid holiday arising from Covid-19 carry-over provisions.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The respondent failed to establish redundancy as it did not prove the requirement for the claimant's type of work had diminished — only that others might now do it. The consultation was deficient: no written business case, no meaningful response to the claimant's comprehensive representations, and the process appeared predetermined. The tribunal awarded the claimant 56 days' outstanding holiday pay (£22,207.64) plus interest, and listed the case for a remedy hearing on unfair dismissal.
Practical note
Employers asserting redundancy must prove the statutory definition — that the requirement for employees to do work of a particular kind has diminished — not merely that a restructure is proposed, and must provide detailed written rationale and genuine consultation with reasoned responses to employee representations.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1801881/2023
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- George Future Lead, Ecommerce
- Service
- 17 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No