Hi All,
I'd appreciate your opinion on the strength of a case for unfair dismissal.
Background
Company had two projects (1 and 2). Project 2 was cancelled which required a reduction in headcount.
My immediate team consisted of one manager, one deputy and two roles beneath (Role A and Role B). The Manager/Deputy were capable of doing both roles. Both roles A and B did work that was required by 'regulations'. They were both at the same grade and both booked to Project 1 and Project 2. They were different roles but not specialist. They required similar training.
With the cancellation of Project 2 the Manager/Deputy workload reduced. Because the company wanted to keep their roles, a person from Role A or B had to go.
Instead of pooling the two roles, it was decided to keep Role B and make Role A redundant. Role A work was then subsumed into the Manager/ Deputy roles.
This was despite the fact that Role B workload had reduced due to the cancellation of Project 2. Whereas Role A was not affected by the cancellation (same workload required independent of number of projects).
The reason given for selecting one role over the other was not workload but the reason the roles came into being.
Role A was hired 6 years ago because the increase in project work meant they wanted a dedicated engineer to do the regulation work.
Role B was hired 4 months prior because new regulations came in that meant we required a new role to cover the extra workload. However, the need for that role was based on the project workload (which has reduced).
The reason given for not pooling Role B was that it was 'a new role brought in by regulations that was negotiated with the customer'.
Essentially, despite working under the same regulatory framework, Role B was treated as a role, with specific work attached to that role. It was also treated more favourably because it was new. Whereas Role A was treated as work that was not attached to a role. Even though they were both required by regulations and both workloads were required by the customer (Role A work would've been negotiated with the customer in an earlier contract).
Had the roles been pooled there would've been a good chance of the person in Role A being selected based on 6 years experience, training completed and also that Role A had done some of Roles B work before. The person in Role B had only been employed 4 months, did not have training and hadn't done Role A work before.
On principle, I know that there is not much to be gained from going to an employment tribunal. But despite this, is there a case that Role A was unfairly dismissed?
Really sorry for the long post.