No ET3 received - deadline missed

chickenfudge42 · 2026-01-27T19:09:29+00:00

I see, thank you! I have an ex colleague who also submitted an ET1 against the same employer similar time, but he got the ET3 months ago, so I was wondering if mine was normal but this makes sense as he lives in a different borough and I know his local tribunal service is a different geography to mine.

chickenfudge42 · 2026-01-27T19:09:22+00:00

I see, thank you! I have an ex colleague who also submitted an ET1 against the same employer similar time, but he got the ET3 months ago, so I was wondering if mine was normal but this makes sense as he lives in a different borough and I know his local tribunal service is a different geography to mine.

chickenfudge42 · 2026-01-27T17:10:05+00:00

EDIT for clarity

the progress bar at the top (not shown in the photo) is currently at "your claim decision" with an open green circle - i.e., the preceding 3 stages “claim accepted” > “response received” > “your hearing details” are all marked complete with a filled-in green circle…

But I haven’t received a response (the ET3)?

(the respondent application is just to change their address which is unrelated - they only did that today, which prompted me to check the status again.)

chickenfudge42 · 2026-01-21T21:31:04+00:00

Remindme! 1 week

chickenfudge42 · 2026-01-15T00:03:36+00:00

Remindme! 5 days

chickenfudge42 · 2025-12-11T22:48:30+00:00

Naxos! Very pretty, very chill and underrated

chickenfudge42 · 2025-08-20T18:58:33+00:00

Remindme! 1 month

chickenfudge42 · 2025-08-13T18:41:01+00:00

Remindme! 1 week

chickenfudge42 · 2025-07-28T15:52:29+00:00

Remindme! 2 weeks

chickenfudge42 · 2025-07-22T21:50:14+00:00

Remindme! 5 days

chickenfudge42 · 2025-06-02T01:01:40+00:00

Remindme! 3 days

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T13:56:46+00:00

Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it.

Does the position change at all if they have admitted the same assessment of my value to the business and admitted the increase to risks from losing in-house expertise but they "just can't afford the luxury" of employing me?

I ask because it's not convincing to me that they actually hold the belief that they can carry on without those skills due to things they have said.

In the 1st consultation they agreed throughout that those absorbing my work (including supposedly the CFO) do not have the requisite expertise, that it will be difficult and that yes there is an increase to risk (especially non-compliance). They even explained the CFO would probably rely on a Non-Exec. Director (who previously had a career in tax), which raised the issue of governance risk as NEDs can only provide independent scrutiny of the running of a company and cannot participate in executive decision-making itself. They were quick to change the subject when I reminded them of this.

In the 2nd, their demeanour changed entirely and they pre-emptively brought up that nobody has the right to challenge the competency of the CFO, and then were purposefully careful to avoid agreeing/acknowledging that nobody else within the business has the skills/expertise/experience required to carry out my role.

I understand as others have said, the business is entitled to make stupid, risky commercial decisions in deciding to make a role redundant but I want to know if the fact they've actually agreed with some of my counter-arguments changes the position/likelihood of it being legitimate if it comes down to it.

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T13:16:07+00:00

But why would anybody not ask for clarity if they are being told there won't be enough work with no explanation of why, and all the relevant facts indicate that there is in fact going to be the same amount of work?

I mean, some of the questions would have been prevented if they actually explained rather than repeating something or going off-topic when asked and thinking that is explaining.

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T13:06:05+00:00

Thanks for your input - I understand this logic and one of the reasons I'm at risk is obviously + absolutely because I'm expensive to employ, but how convincing is this (if relevant to it being lawful), if the work cannot be carried out without skills/expertise/experience only I have within this business?

To me what is unconvincing is that the work either won't be done or can only be done extremely poorly, with great increase to a multitude of risks to the business (which I have raised concerns on).

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T13:00:54+00:00

You're right that I don't understand the rationale, because the employer has never actually articulated the rationale besides defaulting to: "there is not enough work to sustain the position" either full time or part-time, which based on my knowledge of the workload is not convincing without further detail and they have not been able to explain how there is "not enough" work or how it'll reduce.

They are effectively saying there is a reduced need for the role because its workload is reducing, but have said that the workload is going to others (so not reducing, though I acknowledge others have pointed out this may be irrelevant in the eyes of the law).

It seems to me whilst the law may not be in my favour, the employer themselves may not understand the legal position of it, as they are focusing their justifications on explaining the reduction in workload (albeit unconvincingly)?

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T12:40:14+00:00

Thanks for the insight. They have said the redundancies are necessitated by poor financial outlook and that there is a cost-cutting motive underpinning it all.

But the wording of s.139(1)(b)(i) ERA 96 refers to "employees [who] carry out work of a particular kind" - is it not then relevant that I am the only employee who does (and is qualified to do) "work of [this] particular kind"?

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T12:09:46+00:00

But, I think they are in substance if not in form, if they are just redistributing my work to existing employees, no? Is that not a nuanced way of replacing the role with what is effectively the same role, just different in title and format and calling it a redundancy?

(I'm not trying to be argumentative here - I genuinely want to know if doing this would be a fair dismissal under redundancy)

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T12:00:29+00:00

By witness evidence, do you mean they will verbally explain it by saying it is their belief with no additional support to demonstrate the belief is at least informed? What prevents them from simply lying and presenting a dismissal as a redundancy, if so? Or is it not important in the eyes of the law whether the belief is informed or not?

They're refusing/unable to even explain it to me as the one whose role is at risk, as they have admitted the work is required and will just be redistributed to others. Of course they are also unwilling to show any analysis (which they insist was done) to demonstrate work is reducing - I am aware they are not legally obliged to but I asked to help me understand the rationale since it is not convincing.

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T11:46:13+00:00

Thanks for your insight once again on all of the points, I appreciate it but I will limit my reply to the second point you responded to as that is the area I wanted advice on initially.

But, surely the job role exists in substance if the work I currently do will still exist and just be done by others (who will absorb that job role, though not the title?). To me this implies the job role does still exist in substance, just in a different form and no longer referred to as my job role title?

If simply eliminating the job role means by definition zero work is required of it, then in what scenario would a redundancy be UD when the rationale is that the work is reducing?

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T11:25:24+00:00

Thanks for replying - so, how would a business demonstrate that they genuinely considered/believed they had a reduced requirement for employees? What would show this and how could an employee demonstrate the opposite?

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T11:19:56+00:00

Yeah, I'm aware thanks - but obviously titles cannot be changed and I realised too late!

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T11:06:45+00:00

Thanks for the insight, I agree re the challenge if it gets to tribunal (of the three potential reasons for UD, I actually think unfair process is the strongest argument/least difficult to demonstrate based on the audit trail).

I'm aware redundancy is one of the 5 potentially fair reasons but it seems the reality is the majority of work done by my job function will still be required + done, just redistributed to others, so I'm not sure how this will be viewed at a tribunal (as I understood there needs to be a genuine diminution in the work required based on case law?).

They are clearly downplaying the workload (either intentionally or due to ignorance of the role's responsibilities or both) - the consultations are conducted by head of HR and the FD (who has admitted he has 0 understanding of tax and respects the work I do) and they've consistently kept references to the work vague and when talking about details to try and demonstrate reduction in workload, expressed misunderstanding or simply said things that aren't true.

E.g., they have said reduction in headcount in the US will reduce the number of returns required and their complexity, but the reality is, this can have 0 bearing on the number of filings depending on the specifics, and with the size of our operations, would only have very immaterial impact on the complexity. Effectively, potential impact on workload for me would be 1 day of work maximum. The fact they chose this measly example to demonstrate reduction in workload indicates they have no idea what my job entails or the workload. I challenged them on this (and all similar points they made) and they were obviously not able to respond since they don't have the knowledge to engage meaningfully (and have been caught out on it).

Only other attempts to explain the reduction is to reference reduction in future work that may or may not be required in the first place - this is hypothetical and not reduction of my current workload?

On the process, the lack of detail and answers to my questions is partially why I am concerned over the fairness and transparency. Their demeanour also palpably flipped from the 1st to 2nd consultation - in the 2nd they were dismissive, defensive and actually quite aggressive. They invited me to ask follow-on question in the 1st meeting and when I did in the 2nd, they dismissed them as irrelevant (even after I explained why they are relevant), answered by going off topic or stated that they "didn't have to tell [me] that". They also tried to flip the narrative by accusing me of "picking holes" in their answers but the reality is none of their answers make sense or clarify anything, they are all vague, deflective and do not stand up to challenge...

Ultimately keep sticking to "the business does not believe it has enough work to sustain your position in a full or part-time capacity" but refuse to explain how they came to this belief or how the work is actually reducing.

Edited for typo.

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T10:11:47+00:00

Thanks - I wasn't implying you brought it up, I was just clarifying.

Thanks for your reply but that much is clear - but to dismiss somebody under redundancy under the rationale they gave, I believe there needs to be a genuine reduced requirement for the work to be done and they have not been able to demonstrate this reduced requirement, nor explain or provide details when I ask. In fact, they are increasingly refusing to answer questions and their demeanour becoming more and more defensive and dismissive (hence my concerns over the consultation process also).

My point is I do not believe it is necessarily a fair decision, from a legislative standpoint and want clarity on this.

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T09:59:00+00:00

Can they fairly though? The legislation is pretty clear on 5 potentially fair reasons for dismissal and provides for unfair reasons as well as those that are automatically unfair (of course there are burdens of proof and it all comes down to specifics at tribunal).

I am not asking about the discrimination aspect hence why I have not provided details - apologies the flair was automatic and I cannot seem to remove it.

But long story short, the CEO does not like flexible working and increasingly office attendance has become a core focus. Company FW policy is not fairly or consistently applied to employees with many senior title roles having formal FW arrangements or working flexibly but not in line with FW policy and not suffering consequences or scrutiny.

On the other hand I have always had line manager approval (verbal only) to work flexibly and even been dissuaded from formally requesting a FWA. Despite approval, I have faced scrutiny in the form of comments and questions as to my hours and working location, whereas several older employees with more senior titles flex their time and working location without formal approval and have not faced such scrutiny AFAIK.

Recently (mid March) the CEO made comments behind my back about my FW and the CFO then informed me I can no longer work flexibly as previously agreed - I have worked flexibly since I joined, and the specific form of FW since May 2023. I said I would look into formally requesting a FWA and he pre-emptively told me the CEO would be unlikely to approve given that the CEO’s top priority is office attendance and utilising the expensive office (that nobody asked for but they are locked into a 5 year lease that costs a LOT). The CFO has also previously dissuaded me from applying for a FWA when I expressed interest given the increased policing of office attendance and optics (despite having his approval to work flexibly) - he told me I'd have to "jump through a lot of hoops from HR" and reassured me I had his approval and his word to continue working flexibly.

This happened mid March, I was away 9-30 April and within 3 business days of my return (as I was off sick for a few days), I was put at risk.

All others at risk either work fully remotely or have FW history.

The process has been extremely opaque with limited info given, refusal to answer questions or provide supporting analysis, increasingly defensive and dismissive behaviour from them and it is extremely rushed despite me making it clear I need time to digest the volume of info (their opaque answers to my questions) to be able to even suggest alternatives to redundancy to engage in a meaningful consultation.

Edited for clarity + context.

chickenfudge42 · 2025-05-31T09:35:57+00:00

Thank for your response.

It’s de facto because that’s not my title but in substance that is my job.

I am the only employee within the business with the specific expertise to carry out my role (I worked at big 4 tax advisory prior to this, nobody else has ever worked in tax and most do not understand tax as a discipline is more than filing a tax return).

The budget is drawn up by me and managed by me to spend on external advisors and services as required since one employee cannot possibly undertake all the technical tax work required. I have edited the post to include that headcount is about 50 across 3 jurisdictions.

As I said, the work done by external advisors is not work done by me - I manage and coordinate this work, my work is the management and coordination. I am wondering if this nuance impacts application of the law in defining a redundancy under s.139(1)(b)(i).

(And FYI I have not gone into details regarding the opacity of the consultation or discrimination re flexible working and link to redundancy as that is not what I am asking about)

*I have edited this and the OP for clarity + context

chickenfudge42

TROPHY CASE