Lessons from Strydom v Bridge Facilities Engineers Ltd
In the complex world of employment law, understanding the intricacies of redundancy procedures, unfair dismissal, and remote work policies is crucial for business owners. This case study delves into the UK Employment Tribunal case of Mr. M. Strydom v Bridge Facilities Engineers Limited [2023] UKET 3305964/2021, providing a detailed analysis of the key issues and offering actionable insights for businesses.
Background
Mr. Strydom, an employee of Bridge Facilities Engineers Ltd, was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. However, he claimed his dismissal was unfair, asserting it was due to his request to work from home during the third national lockdown, a request made out of concern for his son’s health. The respondent, represented by outsourced HR consultant Ms. Tasneem Virani, argued that the dismissal was due to restructuring and downsizing.
Mistakes Made
The respondent and Ms. Virani made several critical mistakes that led to the tribunal ruling in favour of Mr. Strydom.
Lack of Clear Reason for Dismissal: The tribunal found that the redundancy was a sham to cover up the real reason for dismissal – Mr. Strydom’s request to work from home. This lack of a clear and fair reason for dismissal was a significant error. Legally, it is essential to provide a valid reason for dismissal to ensure the process is fair and justifiable.
Absence of Proper Consultation: The respondent failed to consult Mr. Strydom before his dismissal. He was given no warning; the redundancy was presented as a fait accompli. This lack of consultation violated the principles of fair redundancy procedures, which require employers to engage in meaningful dialogue with employees at risk of redundancy.
Failure to Rectify Procedural Defects on Appeal: The respondent failed to rectify any procedural defects on appeal, further weakening their position. In any dismissal process, it is crucial to ensure that any procedural errors are corrected during the appeal stage to uphold the fairness of the process.
Best Practice Solutions
To avoid such pitfalls, business owners should adhere to the following best practices:
Clear Communication: Ensure that the reasons for dismissal are clear, fair, and well-documented. If redundancy is the reason, it should be genuine and not a cover-up for other reasons. In the case of Mr. Strydom, the respondent could have avoided the tribunal if they had communicated their reasons for dismissal clearly and honestly.
Fair Redundancy Procedures: Follow a fair and transparent redundancy process. This includes informing the employee at risk, holding consultations to discuss alternatives to redundancy, and providing the right to appeal. In Mr. Strydom’s case, the respondent failed to follow these procedures, leading to a ruling of unfair dismissal.
Remote Work Policies: Establish clear remote work policies. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of flexible work arrangements. If an employee requests to work from home, consider the request seriously and discuss any concerns openly. In this case, the respondent could have engaged in a dialogue with Mr. Strydom about his work-from-home request instead of dismissing him.
Professional Advice: Engage a competent consultant who understands employment law. They should guide the process and ensure compliance with legal requirements. In this case, Ms. Virani could have advised the respondent better on the redundancy process and the handling of Mr. Strydom's work-from-home request.
Conclusion
The case of Mr. M. Strydom v Bridge Facilities Engineers Limited serves as a stark reminder of the importance of understanding and correctly implementing workplace legislation. The key takeaways for business owners are:
- Redundancy must be genuine — it should never be used as a cover for other reasons. A fair, transparent process includes proper consultation and the right to appeal.
- Dismissal procedures matter — unfair dismissal claims can be financially and reputationally damaging. Always provide a clear reason, follow a fair process, and offer appeal rights.
- Flexible working policies are essential — requests to work from home should be considered seriously, and any refusals must be clearly communicated and documented.
When in doubt, seek professional advice. This case highlights the importance of having an independent consultant to guide you through complex legal matters, helping you avoid costly disputes and maintain a positive work environment.
