Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, founder of Barrhead Travel, was dismissed by Travel Leaders Group (TLG) following a sale in 2018. TLG asserted the role of Chairman at Barrhead Travel became redundant as part of a business reorganisation, but the claimant argued he was not fairly consulted and was unwilling to accept a new contract that severed his ties to Barrhead. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to a flawed appeal process and unsuitable alternative employment terms, concluding the claimant contributed to his dismissal by refusing to disengage from Barrhead operations.
Issues
- The tribunal assessed if the respondent's offer of a new role (Non-Executive Chairman for TLG UK Ltd) and consultancy agreement were suitable alternatives. It concluded the omission of continuity of service rendered the offer unreasonable, contributing to the unfair dismissal ruling.
- The tribunal determined whether the claimant's dismissal was fair, considering if the redundancy reasoning was valid or if the real reason was conduct (e.g., continued involvement in Barrhead Travel). The respondent argued the role was redundant due to business reorganisation, but the tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to flawed procedures and unreasonable alternative employment offers.
- The tribunal found the appeal process flawed because Mr O'Hara accepted management's claims about the claimant's disruptive conduct without allowing the claimant to respond. This influenced the appeal outcome and contributed to the dismissal being deemed unfair.
Holdings
- Reinstatement or re-engagement was not practicable as the respondent could not reasonably accommodate the claimant's return due to irreparable breakdown in trust and operational conflicts.
- The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £2754 (net) to settle the balance of notice pay owed, as agreed in the judgment.
- The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent due to redundancy and procedural flaws in the dismissal process.
- The compensatory award was reduced to nil due to a 100% Polkey reduction, as the claimant contributed fully to his dismissal by refusing to comply with role boundaries and contractual terms.
Remedies
- The tribunal reduced the compensation award to nil, as the claimant contributed 100% to his dismissal and the respondent would not have proceeded with reinstatement or re-engagement even with a fair procedure.
- The tribunal determined that reinstatement or re-engagement was not practicable due to the breakdown in trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent.
- The respondent is required to pay the claimant £2754 (net) to settle the remaining notice payment.
- The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
Monetary Damages
2754.00
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the statutory definition of redundancy (s.139 ERA) and assessed fairness under s.98(4) ERA. Key principles included the employer's burden to show a fair reason for dismissal, the requirement to follow proper redundancy procedures (Polkey principles), and the evaluation of contributory conduct (Nelson v BBC). The court emphasized the need for employers to consult, offer suitable alternative employment, and avoid predetermined dismissal outcomes.
Precedent Name
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Nelson v BBC (No 2)
- Elliot v Richard Stump Ltd
Cited Statute
Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
L Wiseman
Passage Text
- I decided the offer of alternative employment on unreasonable terms and the flawed appeal process rendered the dismissal of the claimant unfair.
- The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent; it was not practicable to order reinstatement or re-engagement; the award of compensation is reduced to nil; and the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £2754 (net) in respect of the balance of the payment of notice.
- I concluded ... the claimant's conduct (by refusing to cease his involvement with Barrhead Travel and by being unwilling to work to the terms of the amended contract) contributed to his dismissal by 100%.