Joseph De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd
[2023] EAT 129
Z Valimulla v Al-Khair Foundation
10 October 2023
[2023] EAT 131
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A charity worker was unfairly fired, as the judge didn't check if the charity fairly picked him for redundancy or if they talked to him about it properly before deciding. The case is going back to court for another look.
Key Facts
- •Mr Valimulla (Claimant) was a Masjid Liaison Officer (MLO) for Al-Khair Foundation (Respondent), a charity.
- •He was dismissed as redundant during the Covid-19 pandemic.
- •For redundancy selection, the Claimant was placed in a pool of one.
- •The Employment Tribunal found his dismissal fair, accepting the Respondent's claim that his role was 'unique'.
- •The Claimant appealed, arguing insufficient fact-finding on fairness of the employer's pooling approach and lack of consultation.
- •Other MLOs performed similar roles in different locations.
- •Three consultation meetings occurred, but the Claimant argued they were ineffective and after key decisions were made.
Legal Principles
Redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal; fairness of the dismissal must be assessed considering all circumstances, including employer size and resources.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), sections 94, 98, and 139
Employers have wide discretion in redundancy decisions but cannot act arbitrarily; consultation is key to a fair redundancy process and must occur at a formative stage to be meaningful.
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] IRLR 83, Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] IRLR 44, Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard [2012] IRLR 814, Taymech v Ryan [1994] EAT/663/94
There's no legal requirement for a redundancy pool to only include those doing the same or similar work, but the employer's reasoning and whether they genuinely considered the pooling issue must be carefully scrutinised.
Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard [2012] IRLR 814, Taymech v Ryan [1994] EAT/663/94
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on grounds of insufficient fact-finding on pooling and lack of meaningful consultation.
The Tribunal insufficiently examined whether the Respondent genuinely considered pooling the Claimant with other MLOs and whether consultation occurred at a stage where it could influence the decision. The consultation that did occur happened after the decision to place the claimant in a pool of one had been made.
Decision substituted for procedural unfair dismissal due to lack of meaningful consultation.
Consultation on the key issue (placing the Claimant in a pool of one) was inadequate; meaningful consultation requires a provisional proposal and opportunity for feedback before a final decision.
Remitted to a different Employment Tribunal to consider the fairness of the pooling process.
The original Tribunal's assessment of the pooling process was inadequate and requires further investigation.