An employment tribunal has found that a part-time facilities consultant was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after being selected for redundancy during a surprise video call on one of her non-working days.
Joanne Neill, who worked for skincare company Dermalogica UK, was awarded £24,042.08 in compensation.
Neill, who was struggling with mental health issues at the time, had not been warned in advance about the nature of the meeting. The video conference was titled as a “catch up” and scheduled during a day when she was not working. During the call, which included her line manager and another manager, she was informed she had been selected for redundancy.
Employment Judge Liz Ord ruled that the company had mishandled the situation, contributing to a decline in Neill’s mental health. The tribunal noted that the short notice, the misleading meeting title and the lack of HR presence or support created a distressing experience for the employee, who was “unprepared and blind-sided”.
The remote nature of the call, conducted via Microsoft Teams, worsened the impact, according to the tribunal’s findings.
Redundancy based on part-time status ruled discriminatory
Neill had been working two days a week and had requested to work from home in early 2022 due to her mental health. However, her request was denied. The tribunal heard that she frequently broke down at work but continued attending due to being entitled to only two days of sick pay per year.
Neill was selected for redundancy in November 2022. Her manager, Ian White, said that her part-time hours made her a suitable candidate as the company sought to reduce headcount. However, the tribunal found that selecting Neill on the basis of her working pattern breached the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and amounted to indirect sex discrimination, as women are more likely to work part-time.
After the video meeting, White informed other team members of Neill’s dismissal. News of the redundancy circulated around the office, although Neill ultimately remained in her role for a time after another team member left. The tribunal found that this lack of clear process and communication further worsened Dermalogica’s handling of the situation.
In addition to failing to give Neill adequate notice or context for the meeting, the tribunal ruled that she should have been allowed to be accompanied. The failure to do so contributed to the finding of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
Implications for HR and redundancy procedure
Ross Spiller, solicitor at Mayo Wynne Baxter, told HR review that this case is an example of the importance of how redundancy meetings are conducted. “The case is a useful reminder for HR practitioners that the way in which a meeting regarding a prospective redundancy is conducted can be equally as important as the content of the meeting itself,” he said.
Spiller noted that employers should take particular care when handling redundancy where mental health concerns are present. He added that if Neill had been informed of the purpose of the meeting in advance and it had been held in the office, the negative impact on her wellbeing might have been reduced.
He also advised that HR professionals involved in redundancy decisions should be properly trained and supported. In Neill’s case, although support was requested for the managers involved, it was not provided.
Spiller also warned against making redundancy decisions based solely on part-time working status. “Employers should also be conscious not to make decisions solely based on an employee’s part-time status,” he said. “Doing so could place them at risk of a part-time worker detriment claim and also an indirect sex discrimination claim.”
