In Williams v Lyons Holiday Park, SJ Williams (Williams), the claimant, was unfairly dismissed after the employer, Lyons Holiday Park Ltd (Lyons),‘engineered a so-called redundancy situation‘, due to concerns about her performance, capability and relationships with colleagues. You can read the full judgment here.
In this article, we will discuss the case of Williams v Lyons Holiday Park, including:
- Background of the case
- The Employment Tribunal ruling
- What does this ruling mean for employers?
Background of Williams v Lyons Holiday Park
Williams was employed by Lyons Holiday Park as a Marketing & Customer Service Assistant from 2011, until she was made redundant in March 2020. At the time of being made redundant, Williams was 60 years old with a clean disciplinary record.
Lyons is a family run business. It started out as a small caravan park, but grew rapidly in size to become a large employer with up to 4,000 employees, offering a range of different holiday products and venues.
The Marketing department was seen as being in need of change and to be ‘shaken up’. Lyons was aware that its social media activities were not as successful as its competitors and wanted to improve its use of social media for digital marketing. Williams was seen by senior managers as ‘part of the inefficiency problem’ in the marketing team. They were also critical of her capability and performance, particularly in relation to her ability to use social media as a marketing tool.
When the Marketing Manager role became vacant, Williams applied for the position but was unsuccessful. There was a poor working relationship between Williams and her new manager, Davies, which led to a negative atmosphere in the team. Senior management believed that Williams was resentful of Davies and his appointment to the management role.
A Marketing Assistant, Lucy Raven, was hired. Some of Williams’ job tasks were reallocated to Raven, including many social media responsibilities.
Lyons decided to restructure the Marketing team, making one role redundant. Initially all three members of the marketing team were placed at risk of redundancy. It was then decided that Davies would be excluded from the process. Despite Ravens resigning from her role in marketing, Lyons continued with the process to disestablish one role.
As part of the restructure, two new marketing roles were created. Williams applied for the role of Social Media Marketing Assistant. Unbeknownst to Williams an external candidate was invited to apply for the position, and was later appointed to the role.
Williams was informed that her application had been unsuccessful and that as her existing role had been disestablished, she would therefore be dismissed by reason of redundancy. Williams wrote to Lyons requesting a copy of the grievance procedure. Lyons responded to say that as she was no longer an employee, the grievance procedure was not available to her. Williams was not made aware of her right to appeal the decision to make her redundant.
Williams subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of age.
Williams v Lyons Holiday Park at the Employment Tribunal Ruling
In assessing whether redundancy was the reason for the dismissal, the Employment Tribunal applied the three tests set out in Safeway Stores plc v Burrell, ie:
- Has the employee been dismissed?
- Have the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind diminished?
- Is the dismissal attributable, wholly or mainly, to that state of affairs?
The Employment Tribunal held that there was no diminution in need for people to perform the work of the marketing department, so therefore there was no redundancy situation. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the resignation of Raven, as well as the recruitment of two extra marketing roles as evidence that marketing work continued to exist.
Instead, the Employment Tribunal found that Lyons engineered the dismissal of Williams as she did not ‘fit its bill based on performance and relationships’.
Furthermore, the Employment Tribunal found that the process followed was unfair. The Tribunal held that the notification of redundancy and consultation were not meaningful, and there was no real effort to find an alternative to dismissal. Williams was not given the opportunity to properly contest her selection for dismissal; nor was she given the right to appeal. Williams’ claim of unfair dismissal was therefore successful.
In assessing the claim of discrimination on the grounds of age, the Employment Tribunal found no evidence that Lyons’ treatment of Williams was due to her age. Instead it found that the reason for the treatment was due to concerns about her capability and performance, and also due to personal work-based ill-will. Therefore, Williams’ claim of age discrimination was unsuccessful.
Practical takeaways for employers
Williams v Lyons Holiday Park provides some important learnings for employers who are considering a redundancy process. The case illustrates the importance of:
Ensuring redundancy is the appropriate process to follow
Employers should carefully consider the reasons for the dismissal, and should ask themselves the following questions:
- Have the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind diminished?
- Is the dismissal attributable, wholly or mainly, to that state of affairs?
If the answer to either question is no, then redundancy is not the right process to follow. Employers should consider whether a capability or misconduct process might be more appropriate. Further information is available in our guides:
Following a fair process
Employers are required to follow a fair process when making an employee redundant. Williams and ors v Compare Maxam laid down the following guidelines:
- Employees should be warned in good time;
- Employees should be meaningfully consulted about the redundancy. To be meaningful, any such consultation ought to take place before any final decision is made;
- Any recognised trade union’s views should be sought;
- Any selection criteria should be objectively chosen and fairly applied; and
- Reasonable consideration should be given to the availability of alternative work.
Providing the right to appeal
Employees should be informed of the right to appeal against a decision to make them redundant.
Further information on conducting a redundancy process is available in our guide: A Complete Guide to Handling Redundancies for Employers.
What can we do to help?
If you would like advice on a redundancy process, please contact our team on 0330 223 5253 or office@fitzgeraldhr.co.uk. We would be delighted to help you.
We hope you found this guide useful. You may also find the resources below helpful.
