In Mr. Z Valimulla v Al-Khair Foundation [2023] EAT 131, the EAT held that:
- Insufficient findings of fact regarding redundancy selection processes can lead to an appeal being upheld.
- Meaningful consultation is a critical component of a fair redundancy process.
The case published 13th June 2024 involved Mr. Z Valimulla, who worked as a Masjid Liaison Officer (MLO) for the Al-Khair Foundation. He was dismissed during the COVID-19 pandemic on the grounds of redundancy. For redundancy selection, Mr. Valimulla was placed in a pool of one, which the original Employment Tribunal accepted as fair due to the claim that his role was unique.
Mr. Valimulla appealed, arguing that the Tribunal failed to adequately assess the fairness of the redundancy selection process, particularly the reasonableness of placing him in a pool of one and the lack of consultation regarding this decision. The EAT found that the Tribunal did not sufficiently scrutinise whether the employer genuinely applied its mind to the question of pooling and whether the selection process was reasonable. Furthermore, the EAT emphasised the importance of consultation, stating that it should occur at a stage where it can impact the decision.
The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for further consideration on these points.
Applying the principles established in Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard [1995] IRLR 433 and Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] IRLR 44, the EAT highlighted that consultation should be meaningful and that the pooling process should be carefully considered to ensure fairness. The lack of sufficient findings and the failure to address meaningful consultation led to the conclusion that Mr. Valimulla’s dismissal was procedurally unfair.
Mr Z Valimulla v Al-Khair Foundation: [2023] EAT 131 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
