Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Thomas v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Property Management UK Ltd  UKEAT/0134/16/JOJ the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that the Employment Tribunal had erred in finding that a “perfunctory” and “insensitive” redundancy process had not resulted in an unfair dismissal.

Mr Thomas commenced employment for BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory and Property Management Ltd (“BNP”) in 1972 and by 2004 was employed as a Director in the Property Management Division.

In 2013 BNP engaged Paul Abrey as Head of Property Management. Mr Abrey decided that a strategic review of the business should be untertaken and the outcome of that review was that a number of divisions, including Mr Thomas’s division, should be restructured as there were more Director and Senior Director roles than the nature of the work and volume of work required. This meant that a number of persons were identified as being at risk of redundancy, including Mr Thomas and six others. Mr Thomas was informed on 6 January 2014 that his role may be made redundant and that there would be a ‘pool of one’. He was immediately put on paid garden leave and told not to contact clients or colleagues.

On 7 January 2014 there was a redundancy consultation meeting, attended by Mr Thomas. In this meeting Mr Thomas was told that he would continue to be on garden leave, that the redundancy process would continue, and that he should not contact colleagues or clients. Mr Thomas suggested that his Director-level role could continue if he was given a specific client account but it was determined that this client account was already being handled by a colleague.

On 8 January 2014 Mr Thomas was sent a letter confirming what had occurred on 7 January 2014. This letter was headed “Dear Paul” whereas Mr Thomas’ first name is “Peter”. Mr Thomas was hurt by this. Mr Thomas was sent a list of vacancies and in January 2014 there was a back-and-forth regarding the availability and suitability of certain roles. This came to nothing.

On 13 February 2014 the final consultation meeting took place and Mr Thomas was told that there was no alternative to making his position redundant. On 14 February 2014 a letter of dismissal was sent, with this letter inaccurately referring to a termination date of 6 May 2014 (it should have been 13 May 2014).

Mr Thomas appealed against the decision to make him redundant, raising a number of issues including challenging the outcome of the  strategic review, arguing that the redundancy process was a ‘sham’ and that it was predetermined, and raising concerns that he had been discriminated against because of his age. Mr Thomas was unsuccessful with his appeal and made claims to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and disability discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal found that there was a genuine redundancy situation and that Mr Thomas was dismissed for the reason of redundancy. It found that getting Mr Thomas’ name wrong in the letter of 6 January 2014 and putting the incorrect termination date was “insensitive”, and that the redundancy process was “perfunctory”, but held that the consultation did fall with the range of reasonable responses. The Employment Tribunal also found that Mr Thomas’ dismissal was not predetermined and a sham, holding that there was no evidence to this effect. The Employment Tribunal therefore dismissed all of Mr Thomas’ claims, including his claim for unfair dismissal.

Mr Thomas appealed against the decision of the Employment Tribunal with regards to its decision to reject his unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims, arguing with regards to the unfair dismissal claim that the Tribunal had misapplied the law and had come to the wrong conclusion on whether the consultation was unfair.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed Mr Thomas’ appeal against the Tribunal’s decision on age discrimination but upheld his appeal on the unfair dismissal points. The EAT found that the fact that the Tribunal had described the consultation process as “insensitive” and perfunctory” suggested a lack of fairness in the consultation process and, further, that the fact that Mr Thomas was placed on garden leave at the beginning of the redundancy process as suggestive of a predetermined outcome.

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case indicates that employers should, when undertaking redundancy exercises, be extremely careful to ensure that the process is undertaken in a measured and sensitive manner, and that steps should not be taken which may suggest that the outcome of the redundancy process is predetermined (such as, for example, placing the employee on garden leave at the beginning of the consultation exercise).”

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.72 Average

89 Reviews

Anonymous

I requested Redmans services on a redundancy case. Both Chris and Rana were great, thoughtful, very professional and responded quickly. They were very clear throughout the entire process, regarding the process and my options and I couldn't feel I had better legal advice for my case. Overall excellent service and I would certainly recommend and use their services again.

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

Responsive, patient, thorough and personable - an excellent service.

Posted 4 days ago

Anonymous

The team at Redmans, Chris Hadrill and Sacha Barrett were always very helpful and had expert knowledge to assist me during my employment law matter, I would not hesitate to recommend them to all!

Posted 4 days ago

Arun T

Chris was punctual, attentive and accurate. He answered my questions with clarity and avoided dubiosity. I would recommend him to anyone seeking legal advice within his remit.

Posted 5 days ago

Yulian Z

Great service

Posted 5 days ago

Anonymous

Excellent, professional service and a speedy resolution. Many thanks

Posted 5 days ago

Taral P

Sacha and Chris were both very helpful in closing out my matter. Sacha was very clear in helping me understanding the documents I needed reviewing, providing a professional service throughout.

Posted 5 days ago

Anonymous

Really pleased with the swift and professional service from Redmans. They provided very clear advice and helped conclude my matter with the minimum of stress or delay.

Posted 5 days ago

Matthew L

Redmans were very quick to respond to my initial enquiry, and provided me with a very effective and efficient service, generating a most satisfactory outcome. I would definitely use them again if the need arose.

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

First rate service. Warm and friendly whilst exceptionally efficient at the same time. I would highly recommend them.

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

Professional and helpful. Thorough and supportive.

Posted 6 days ago

Richard A

Excellent service, prompt replies, great advice

Posted 6 days ago

Anonymous

Very professional services

Posted 6 days ago

Margaret

Redmans Solicitors took a lot of the worry away and were very thoughtful and meticulous in their dealings with my case , thank you very mush , great service and a great job

Posted 1 month ago

Mark B

Prompt efficient service. Hourly, and part thereof, billing got a bit stressful at times - as opposed to flat fee - made me think twice about sending an email or making a quick call when I had a query because it would have eaten up minutes from my budget. But happy with the legal service I received overall and would recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill has provided a truly wonderful service and was willing to lend his support and expertise at a time when other solicitors, only wanted to discuss their fees! A clear thinking and down to earth professional, Chris can be trusted to listen carefully to your matter, cut through the fog, and advise you on the best (and most realistic) way forward, saving you time, money and heartache. It will be helpful if you first get your ducks in a row in terms of documents / evidence etc. and then contact Chris, (that’s what we did) as this will help your matter to be dealt with faster. The more organised and together you are the more successful you will be. You'll be fine with Chris, I highly recommend him. Good luck!

Posted 1 month ago

Richard v

Excellent Service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Very happy from service received. Highly recommend

Posted 1 month ago

Colin W

Very professional and thorough. Sachs who dealt with the bulk of my case was excellent Thank you. .

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I was generally impressed with the fast turn around, efficiency, responsiveness, and consideration of circumstances. I needed a couple of areas of advice quickly and with Redmans help was able to get to a conclusion quickly and with minimum stress. They were friendly and professional throughout - I'd use them again.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

The guidance and assistance I recently received when using Redman's was fantastic. Caroline & Chris were both very informative and understanding walking me through each step. Thank you.

Posted 2 months ago