O'Hora v Tulip International (UK) Bacon Division Ltd

The facts as found by the Industrial Tribunal show the Applicant had served the Respondents for many years as a traffic controller. However, the haulage operation on behalf of the Respondents as a whole was contracted out to a firm called Taylor Barnard.

The management of the haulage operation was centred in one office where the Applicant and another employee of the Respondents worked alongside the transport manager employed by Taylor Barnard. The decision of the Tribunal is silent as to who was responsible for the office itself, but the parties agree, and we therefore incorporate the statement, that it was the Respondents' office.

"7. By the time the applicant gave notice ... of her intention to return to work her job of transport manager had gone. It was being done ... by ... Taylor Barnard's, employee."

The Industrial Tribunal found that the Respondents then treated the Applicant and her assistant as a "pool" from which to select for redundancy and that the Respondents then went through a selection process on established criteria, namely length of service, age and absence record, which resulted in the selection for redundancy of the Applicant in place of the other contender, Mr Thompson. This process was discussed with the Applicant at two meetings. There being no reasonable alternative work for her, the Respondents then dismissed the Applicant purportedly for redundancy.

"11 We find that ... [the Respondents] consultation process was fairly carried out and the deferment was slightly to the applicant's advantage financially. In the end therefore we find that the reason for the applicant's dismissal is redundancy and that that reason was fair."