Three research bodies have published pay data for the three months to the end of March 2024....
The way in which a redundancy process is conducted can affect the fairness of the dismissal
In Thomas v BNP Paribas Read Estate Advisory and Property Management UK a high-level reorganisation has highlighted how the manner in which a redundancy process is completed can affect the fairness of a resultant dismissal.
Mr Thomas (C) had been employed by the Respondent for 41 years and had risen to the level of Director within the Property Management Division of the business. In 2013 the company appointed a new head of the division who decided to undertake a strategic review. As a result, the company concluded there were more Directors and Senior Directors than the business required, and so, in January 2014, 6 individuals, including C, were placed at risk of redundancy.
C was invited to attend an initial meeting to start the consultation process. R read from a pre-prepared set of notes and informed C that he was being placed on garden leave with immediate effect and that he was not to have any contact with employees, customers or suppliers of the business. At the same time, his access to the company’s IT systems and email were immediately cut. Details of his role and that of a colleague were leaked to the Estate's Gazette.
This was the first in a series of incidents which amounted to what the Employment Tribunal described as a “perfunctory and insensitive” redundancy consultation. It was followed by correspondence in which R addressed C by the wrong name, the fact that C was invited to the final consultation meeting immediately upon his return from annual leave, and a dismissal letter which set out the wrong date of dismissal.
C claimed, amongst other things, that his dismissal was unfair and pre-determined. However, despite the label the Tribunal attributed to the consultation process, it concluded that it had been reasonable and the dismissal was fair.
C appealed to the EAT who broadly agreed with the Tribunal’s characterisation of the consultation process, but upheld the appeal. It noted with concern that, having described the consultation in very careful terms as 'perfunctory and insensitive', the Tribunal had then failed to clearly explain how it had not rendered the whole process unfair. Whilst it did not follow that it did, to use such express language and to be so critical of the process, required a clear explanation as to why it was not.
As a result, the case will be re-heard by a different Employment Tribunal to assess the claim again.
This case clearly demonstrates that if employers do not approach a redundancy situation with sensitivity and respect to the employees involved, who are bound to be upset and vulnerable, there is a risk that any resultant dismissal will be found to be unfair. Despite the EAT’s comments that the insensitivity of the employer in this matter was not conclusive that the dismissal was unfair, both Tribunals saw fit to criticise that conduct and expressed sympathy for the Claimant. That alone places an employer at risk of an adverse finding of fact at a contested hearing, and could also lead to bad publicity at what is a public hearing.