Nice Systems UK Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy by a software development company. The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the decision was predetermined before consultation began, the consultation process was flawed, and insufficient steps were taken to seek alternative employment. The claimant was awarded compensatory damages of £6,957 reduced by 35% for contributory fault.

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the decision to dismiss the claimant had been predetermined before consultation started, as evidenced by emails from Ms Lanaido indicating a firm intention and decision to dismiss the claimant as a matter of urgency. The consultation process was a sham that could not affect the outcome, and the respondent failed to provide adequate detail about the work redistribution proposal, conduct a sufficient search for alternative employment, and failed to consider the claimant's grievance as her written representations.

• •Whether dismissal was for genuine redundancy
• •Whether consultation process was fair
• •Predetermination of dismissal decision before consultation
• •Failure to provide detailed work redistribution proposal
• •Insufficient search for alternative employment
• •Failure to consider claimant's grievance as representations
• •Contributory fault of claimant

6007192 2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss E Kolaniak Respondent Nice Systems UK Ltd Heard at Bristol (by CVP) On: 20 and 21/4/2026 Before: Employment Judge Mr J S Burns Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Ms H Ifeka (Counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant was unfairly dismissed with contributory fault of 35% 2. The Respondent must pay the Claimant £6957.45 or the appropriate balance subject to and when the requirements of the Recoupment Regulations have been complied with. (see paragraph 63 of the Reasons) 3. The Claimant’s application for a preparation time order is refused. REASONS 1. This was a claim for unfair dismissal, the Respondent contending that the reason was redundancy. 2. The documents were in a bundle of 703 pages and a supplementary bundle of 21 pages . I heard evidence from the Respondent’s witnesses Mr J Thake-Edwards (Senior HR business partner) who carried out the consultation, Mr R Moore (Vice President, Information Security) and Ms M Samuel (Vice President HR), who considered the Claimants grievance and Speak-up complaint, and then from the Claimant. Facts 3. The Respondent is a software development business. 4. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 24 February 2022 to 4 December 2024 as Information Security Compliance Manager based at an office near Southampton. The Claimant reported directly to Mr Moore. The Claimant’s duties included drafting and 6007192 2025 2 establishing security policies and standards, supporting audits and providing policy documentation to support customer requests. 5. During the morning of 9/10/2024 Ms M Lanaido, (Director, HRBP, Corporate Services) based in the USA, and who Mr Thake-Edwards described as being “not familiar with the requirements regarding redundancy processes in the UK“ had a team video meeting with Mr M…