Ms K Green v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 3201491/2014
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 2017 |
| Published date | 05 January 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 3201491/2014
mf
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms K Green
Respondent: London Borough of Barking & Dagenham
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 21-24, 27& 28 November 2017
Before: Employment Judge Brown (sitting alone)
Representation
Claimant: Ms S Omeri (Counsel)
Respondent: Miss C Maclaren (Counsel)
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
1. The Respondent did not unfairly dismiss the Claimant.
2. The Remedy Hearing is cancelled.
REASONS
1 The Claimant brings a complaint of unfair dismissal against the Respondent, her
former employer.
2 This hearing took place as a consequence of the Claimant’s ordinary unfair
dismissal claim being remitted to the Tribunal by the EAT, for hearing by a fresh
Tribunal.
3 The issues in the claim were as follows:
Reason for dismissal
3.1 What was the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal?
Fairness of dismissal
Case Number: 3201491/2014
2
3.2 Was there a genuine redundancy situation?
3.3 Did the Respondent conduct adequate consultation and collective
consultation?
3.4 Did the Respondent give adequate consideration to the Claimant’s
response to consultation?
3.5 Was the assimilation process adopted by the Respondent fair?
3.6 Specifically, was the assimilation of Peter Remedios into the PO5 post of
senior regeneration professional (Barking Riverside Co-ordinator) fair?
3.7 Did the Respondent identify an appropriate pool from which to select for
redundancy?
3.8 Did the choice of subject for the written test part of the selection process
give an unfair advantage to one of the Claimant’s competitors, Mamta
Toohey? It being alleged by the Claimant that Ms Toohey had prior
knowledge of the subject by reason of:-
3.8.1 her husband being a solicitor employed by the Respondent who
had sight of a related report; and
3.8.2 having herself submitted a separate related report.
3.9 Was the Claimant’s written test unfairly given lower marks than it
warranted?
3.10 Were the written tests of either of the Claimant’s colleagues unfairly given
higher marks than they warranted?
3.11 Were the Claimant’s answers in interview unfairly given lower marks than
they warranted?
3.12 Did the Respondent give adequate consideration to redeploying the
Claimant into suitable alternative employment?
3.13 Did the Respondent’s refusal to provide the Claimant with her
competitors’ written tests and answers to interview render her appeal
unfair?
3.14 Did the Respondent “improperly edit” the Claimant’s statement of appeal?
3.15 Did the HR representative present at the appeal inappropriately question
the Claimant?
3.16 Was the procedure the Respondent followed in relation to redundancy,
assimilation, interview and scoring, and appeal fair?
To continue reading
Request your trial