Employment Tribunals Can Spot a Sham Redundancy When They See One

It can be hard to distinguish an unfair dismissal from a genuine redundancy process. As was shown by the case of a property manager who found himself on the receiving end of his boss’s unjustified pique, however, Employment Tribunals (ETs) tend to know a sham when they see one.

The…

Mar 08, 2023

Pexels energepiccom 313691 1024x768

It can be hard to distinguish an unfair dismissal from a genuine redundancy process. As was shown by the case of a property manager who found himself on the receiving end of his boss’s unjustified pique, however, Employment Tribunals (ETs) tend to know a sham when they see one.

The founder of the business for which the man worked had taken strongly against him. During a recorded meeting, she made a number of offensive remarks about him in his absence. After he launched proceedings, an ET found that it was at that point that she irrevocably decided that his employment would be terminated. A redundancy exercise ensued, culminating in his dismissal.

The decision to dispense with his services having already been reached, the ET found that the redundancy process was a sham. Steps had been taken to redistribute his work to other employees and so-called consultation meetings were little more than going through the motions.

There was no evidence that the founder’s serious criticisms of him were justified and the ET found that his inevitable dismissal was capricious, borne of pique and the founder’s unwarranted personal dislike of him. A deliberate attempt was made after the event to justify his dismissal on capability grounds.

In also upholding his race discrimination claim, the ET found that the employer had failed to show that the founder’s hostility towards him and her decision to dismiss him were in no sense caused by her view that people of his racial background were not to be trusted.

His racial harassment complaint further succeeded on the basis that her derogatory comments about him were all linked to a negative view of his race once things went wrong in the employment relationship. If not agreed, the amount of his compensation would be assessed at a further hearing.

Synthetic Football Pitch Triggers Information Rights Dispute

If you have environmental or health and safety concerns about a development in your area, you have a right to all the information you may need to mount a successful challenge. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) made that point in a case concerning the controversial installation of a synthetic football pitch. The rubber crumb pitch, made of thousands of end-of-life tyres, was close to homes, a primary school and a leisure centre. A local resident was concerned about the use of chemicals in the…

ET Failed to Consider Context in Victimisation Claim, EAT Rules

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a woman’s appeal against the dismissal of her complaint of victimisation, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had adopted too narrow a definition of what could constitute a protected act and had not sufficiently analysed the context in which the complaint that was said to be a protected act was made. The woman had worked for a pharmacy business since 2001. In 2018 she moved to another of the business’s stores, where she was the only black…

Uber Drivers Are Workers – Supreme Court Finally Settles the Argument

Tightly defined controls that online private hire vehicle operator Uber exerts over drivers who use its app proved decisive in the Supreme Court’s ruling that they are ‘workers’, as defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996, and are thus entitled to receive the National Minimum Wage, paid leave and other benefits. Uber has, without success, fought its way through the tribunal and court systems in an attempt to establish that its drivers are self-employed contractors, in business on their own…