In the case of Teixeira v Zaika Restaurants, the chef was a one of ten. He was less experienced and a ‘non-speciality’ chef, unlike the other nine chefs. The employer did not follow a procedure and merely dismissed the claimant over the telephone. It is therefore no surprise that the Employment Tribunal found the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. However, as the claimant fell into a ‘pool of one’ the compensatory award was reduced by 100% (Polkey reduction) on the basis that the dismissal was inevitable.

On appeal, the EAT remitted the case back to the same tribunal for reconsideration of the basis that it was wrong to have decided that the Claimant’s dismissal was inevitable. Reviewing the recent decision in Mogane, the EAT noted:

“If a fair procedure would have taken some time there would be some compensation to cover the period that the consultation would have taken even if dismissal was inevitable.

“…It is also possible that consultation might have resulted in some change to the pool or even the outcome…”.

If you are considering making any redundancies, this case highlights the importance of following a process even where the decision would appear to be inevitable on the face of it. If you are unsure of what that process looks like, please get in touch with a member of the team via the contact page or by phone 0333 2005153.