| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy – Applicant claimed redundancy sham and dismissal due to performance – Applicant claimed employment agreement (“EA”) signed under duress - Respondent’s managing director (“M”) accepted applicant protested working weekends but denied duress – Authority found although applicant had reservations about EA, not signed under duress – M raised issue of applicant’s very low sales figures compared to co-workers on lower salaries than applicant – Applicant received formal warning for unsatisfactory sales figures – Applicant claimed left further meeting unsure of whether redundant or dismissed – M replied to applicant’s email that still dissatisfied with applicant’s sales performance – M proposed decreasing salary to average staff sales employee salary – Applicant refused reduction in salary, instead requesting annual pay rise – Authority accepted M’s evidence that advised applicant was difficult period, running at growing loss and all positions under evaluation – M contacted applicant’s former employer and discovered applicant did not achieve sales figures claimed in CV – Several weeks later, M advised economic conditions and overstaffing in sales division, meant applicant to be selected for redundancy as highest paid but less effective – In further meeting, M confirmed applicant redundant – Authority preferred M’s evidence of dismissal meeting – Authority found redundancy genuine – Found 10 of 22 staff made redundant due to economic climate – M claimed had to sell house since applicant’s dismissal and business technically insolvent – Authority accepted respondent dramatically affected by recession – Found respondent entitled to reduce staff numbers – Authority found M considered sales figures in redundancy selection process – Found although one co-worker had lower sales figures, applicant’s salary higher – Found applicant rejected M’s attempt to reduce applicant’s salary – Found M also considered applicant’s misrepresentation of sales figures with previous employer, concluding applicant never going to achieve substantial improvement in sales to justify higher salary – Found applicant’s selection for redundancy fair – Applicant claimed no consultation – Authority found applicant well aware sales performance, as linked to salary, unsatisfactory and uneconomical to M – Found applicant advised several times that economic climate difficult for respondent and all employment positions under evaluation – Found ideally M could have provided applicant with more financial details and opportunity to propose alternative – However, found consultation process not so deficient as to make redundancy procedurally unfair or unreasonable – Dismissal justified – Sales manager |