Redundancy Consultation Still Required Even Where There Is a Pool of One
A recent case looks at whether Tribunals will award compensation in redundancy cases where dismissal was highly likely no matter whether a fair process was followed or not.
Teixeira v Zaika Restaurant Ltd
Mr Teixeira was employed as a 'Tandoor Chef'. At the time his employment ended he was one of a team of ten chefs. However, the Tribunal found that Mr Teixeira:
- was not working as a 'speciality chef'
- was a helper in five different departments but could not run any of them
- had far shorter service than the other chefs
- was junior to the only other tandoor chef
As a result of the pandemic, there was a reduction in work in the restaurant. Mr Teixeira was told that he was redundant and would be the only chef chosen for redundancy. He was informed of this decision without any warning or consultation process taking place and as a result he brought a claim for unfair dismissal.
Pool of One
The Employment Tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. However, the tribunal then considered what compensation Mr Teixeira would be entitled to as a result of the procedural unfairness.
The tribunal held that on the facts of this case it was not unreasonable for Mr Teixeira to be placed in a redundancy pool of one, which inevitably meant that the redundancy would have taken place when it did. So even had a fair procedure been followed, there was a 100% chance that the redundancy would have occurred. As a result the tribunal reduced Mr Teixeira's compensation by 100%.
Mr Teixeira appealed to the EAT.
Should There Have Been a 100% Reduction?
The EAT upheld the appeal and found that a pool of one did not always mean that dismissal would have taken place when it did. As a result it was wrong to reduce the award by 100%.
The EAT found that it was erroneous for the ET to have held that warning and consultation would have made no difference to the dismissal. Even where there is a small pool for redundancy, the employer still has a duty to carry out a fair redundancy process and this may well have resulted in a larger pool and wider selection criteria or a different outcome.
The EAT also commented that even where dismissal seemed inevitable, the actual dismissal would likely be delayed to some extent whilst a consultation was carried out.
A Full and Fair Process Should Always Be Followed
Whilst unfair dismissal judgments are always dependent on their specific facts, this case serves as a useful reminder for employers in that they should always ensure a full and fair redundancy process is followed even where there is a very small pool and it appears that the redundancy is bound to happen.