WITNESS STATEMENT AS READ OUT BY CHARLES MALTBY ON 1 DEC 2006
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL Case No 1501249/2006
BETWEEN Mr R S ROSS-LANGLEY (Claimant)
and ANT SOFTWARE LIMITED (Respondent)

I Charles Maltby of Autonomy House, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WZ will say as follows:

1. I have been employed as the Engineering Director of ANT Software Limited (ANT) since January 2005. ANT is a global provider of software, solutions and services for commercial deployment in the digital television and home entertainment electronics markets. It delivers solutions for the delivery, presentation and control of interactive television applications and services. At the relevant time ANT had 48 employees in a variety of roles. It currently has 42 employees. As Engineering Director, I was responsible for 28 staff at the relevant time and I am currently responsible for 20 employees. These 20 employees support me in my roles as the member of the company's executive management team with responsibility to drive and direct product development, as well as the execution of the day-to-day engineering strategy and deliverables.

2. Richard commenced employment with ANT on 02 October 2000. He was initially employed as a Customer Support Engineer. A copy of his employment contract is at pages 6-10 of the bundle. Further references to page numbers in this statement are to pages of the bundle. Richard's role involved providing support to our existing worldwide customer base and supporting sales through the new customer deal closure process by providing in both cases email, and when appropriate, telephone and verbal responses to technical enquiries. With effect from 01 July 2003, Richard's job title was changed to Technical Support Manager (page 34). His responsibilities, salary and benefits remained as previously.

3. Due to the fast changing nature of the IT industry, we frequently have to review the way in which the business operates including how we provide support services and how we meet continually changing customer needs. Our business is very much customer driven and we therefore have to ensure that we are constantly striving to improve the quality of our service to customers and building stronger customer relations with the emphasis on the long term provision of comprehensive technical support so that we can meet customers' ever changing technical needs. The market place is exceedingly competitive and we therefore have to ensure that we are not only maintaining our market position but that we are finding ways of distinguishing ourselves from our competitors.

4. In late 2005 we started to consider our approach to customer support. This continued through to March 2006 as more feedback was obtained from our customers during the induction period of our new Sales Director, Colin Shave, who joined in January 2006. It became clear that we needed to change our approach with customer support to achieve the more long-term relationships the market desired and that a geographical split to the customer support would provide more focus and thus be advantageous to the company.

5. Three staff based in the UK had roles involving the provision of customer support. There were two employees working in the customer support role within the engineering team, Richard Ross-Langley, and Toby Douglass. These were providing first line support to our customers who needed responses to technical questions and were reporting in to me. In addition, there was a Technical Account Manager, Nicholas Wilkinson who was in the Sales team run by the Sales Director, Colin Shave. Nicholas was providing technical advice in a pre-sales role to assist in assessing and meeting customer technical requirements. The Technical Account Manager's role and customer support roles both involved technical issues but the Technical Account Manager role was more pro-active in nature whilst the customer support roles were more reactive to the customers' problems.

6. Colin and I discussed the position and decided a new approach should be taken to satisfying customers' technical needs and support enquiries by consolidating the work carried out in relation to technical customer support with the technical advisory work required in the sales process. The problems we had been experiencing were most acute in the European, the Middle Eastern and African market, known as the EMEA market which is run from the UK. We felt that we needed to create a new role, reporting to the Sales Director, which would effectively combine a number of aspects of both the Technical Support Manager/Customer Support Engineer and the Technical Account Manager roles. We believed that this would provide a more effective service that was more closely related to the needs of our customers. As the proposed change in structure would also eliminate a great deal of the overlap, we felt that it would only be necessary to employ one person in the EMEA region to carry out this role.

7. The Board approved the restructure in mid-March 2006 (pages 80-81) and I then drew up a job description for the new role in conjunction with Colin Shave (page 83-84). The new job description emphasised the need for strong customer facing skills, increased pro-activeness, management of the code release authorisation process, the provision of customer training and the maintenance of an internal database for frequently asked questions. So as to provide a degree of continuity for customers, we named the role Technical Account Manager Europe Middle East and Africa (TAM EMEA).

8. As there were three potential candidates (Richard Ross-Langley, Toby Douglass and Nicholas Wilkinson) for one role, Colin and I drew up some appropriate selection criteria against which to assess them based on the key requirements of the job description (page 100). I then invited Richard, Toby and Nicholas to attend a meeting with Colin and me on 23 March 2006. Our HR Manager, Suzanne Hopkins, also attended that meeting. In preparation for the meeting, I prepared an aide memoire in conjunction with Colin, Suzanne and the Finance Director Paul Dodd, setting out the key points I intended to discuss with Richard, Toby and Nicholas.

9. I explained that responsibility for customer support was to be transferred from the engineering team to the sales team and explained the reasoning behind that. I also explained that this meant a new role would be created combining various aspects of their respective roles, namely that of Technical Account Manager EMEA. I gave each of them a copy of the job specification for the new role and outlined the criteria against which we would assess each of them to decide who should be appointed to the new role. I explained that the two people who were unsuccessful would be potentially redundant and that we would be entering into consultation with each of them to consider whether there was any alternative employment available within the company and that we expected that process would be concluded in two weeks time unless it was requested to be extended for any appropriate reason. I encouraged each of them to consider alternative roles that they felt may be suitable within the company so that we would consider those during the consultation period. I then said that if any of them wished to volunteer for redundancy, we would discuss this further with that person individually. I concluded the meeting asking if there were any questions, of which none were raised, and by confirming that they should feel free to have a meeting with Colin, Suzanne or me if they had any queries about the new position or the process.

10. As the respective directors for the sales and engineering teams and the responsible senior managers for the individuals concerned, Colin and I were chosen by the executive management team to perform the selection for the new role. All three individuals and their work were well known to me both directly and via their line managers.

11. Toby Douglass e-mailed me later that day, saying that he wished to speak to Suzanne and to volunteer for redundancy. I responded and said that I thought that we ought to meet to discuss his position and options further (page 88). I arranged a meeting with Toby for the following day. The following day, having discussed the new role and explained that he was not in fact entitled to a redundancy payment due to his length of service, Toby nevertheless confirmed that he wished to take voluntary redundancy.

12. Richard also asked for a meeting with me and requested a copy of the aide memoire I had prepared. I gave him the aide-memoire which summarised the reasons for the reorganisation, the fact that this was likely to involve redundancies and set out the selection criteria which were to be applied. We had the meeting, which was attended by Suzanne Hopkins, on 24 March 2006 (page 93). Richard was accompanied at the meeting by Toby. Richard asked for some further clarification about the TAM EMEA role. I went over the information I had provided at the meeting on 23 March 2006 and discussed the selection criteria further with Richard, confirming that they would be based on the job specification already provided for the role. I said that Colin Shave and I would independently score both him and Nicholas against the various criteria and would then meet with both of them. I explained that the person who scored the most would be appointed to the role and that the other person would be potentially redundant. Richard commented that he thought the selection process we were following was fair and did not raise any concerns or ask any questions about it. He understood the reasons for the restructure and was supportive of the proposal.

13. Richard then went on to ask what other vacancies might be available within the company. Suzanne explained that at the time the only vacancies were for a General Counsel role and and Accounts Assistant role but that we had already recruited someone for the General Counsel role who was due to start on 3 April 2006. Richard nevertheless expressed interest in the General Counsel role. Suzanne Hopkins explained Richard lacked the necessary legal background and qualifications that were necessary for such a role. He commented that he had legal knowledge. I understand that historically Richard may have proof read certain documents for the company, such as software licences, but he had not done this during my time with the Company and this did not in any event equate to the breadth and depth of experience required for the General Counsel role. The person who in fact has been recruited into that role is a qualified barrister with over 10 years' legal experience. Richard did not express any interest in the Accounts Assistant role. He did not make any suggestions as to how redundancy could be avoided or identify any other roles within the company for which he thought he might be suitable.

14. I concluded the meeting by asking if there were any further questions. None were identified, and I asked Richard to start thinking about what he could bring to the role of TAM EMEA and what other roles he thought he could be considered for, if he felt there were any other areas in the business where a role could be created for him.

15. I had a meeting with Nicholas Wilkinson on 28 March 2006 at which I discussed the same issues (page 97). Nicholas was much more proactive during the consultation process in terms of asking questions about the new role and demonstrating what he could bring to it.

16. Having reviewed my first hand knowledge and previous dialogues with both individuals, re-considered the customer feedback and solicited opinions from other members of the company with regard to the fulfilment of the new role, I scored Nicholas and Richard against the selection criteria at the beginning of April (page 98). At the same time, I e-mailed Colin a copy of the blank pro-forma scoring sheet and asked him to let me know if he felt there were any other criteria that should be added to the selection criteria, to confirm that he agreed with the weightings and then to score both candidates (pages 99-100). Colin agreed with the scoring sheet and scored Richard and Nicholas, and then emailed his scores back to me (pages 101-103). Colin gave Richard a total score of 68.5 and I had given him 52. Colin had given Nicholas a total score of 79 and I had given him 69.5. The scores were then averaged, giving Richard a score of 60.25 and Nicholas a score of 74.25. There was therefore a significant difference between the scores awarded to Richard and Nicholas, Richard being the lower scoring of the two. He was therefore identified as potentially redundant.

17. I again prepared an aide memoire for each of the meetings that Colin and I were due to have with Nicholas and Richard respectively, which I discussed with Suzanne, Colin and Paul Dodd (pages 105-111). We had decided that it would be best for the meetings between Richard, Suzanne and me and between Colin and Nicholas to take place simultaneously on 6 April 2006.

18. Accordingly, Colin met with Nicholas and informed him of the outcome of the selection process and explained that he had been selected for the role as the higher scoring of the two candidates.

19. Suzanne Hopkins and I met with Richard on 6 April. I gave Richard a copy of the pro forma selection criteria and explained that Richard had scored an average of 60.25 but Nicholas had scored 74.25 and that Nicholas was therefore being offered the TAM EMEA role. Richard did not question the basis of the selection, ask to see the more detailed scoring or put forward any proposals as to how redundancy could be avoided. We discussed the fact that there were no suitable alternative roles available at that time. In the absence of any comments or further suggestions from Richard and in the light of the fact that he apparently accepted the basis of his redundancy, his redundancy was confirmed. We discussed the fact that it would be helpful if he could work for a further week in order to carry out an organised handover and he confirmed he was happy to do so. I confirmed that, as he was willing to assist with the handover, as well as paying him in lieu of his notice period he would receive an additional ex gratia payment of one thousand pounds on top of his statutory redundancy pay.

20. Colin and I made the decision based on the results of the scoring against the selection criteria that we had established and the discussions at the consultation meetings.

21. I told Richard of his rights to appeal against the decision to the Chief Executive, Simon Woodward.

22. I then liaised with Suzanne Hopkins regarding the letter which was sent to Richard on 6 April 2006 confirming the decision to terminate his employment by reason of redundancy, setting out the payments that he would receive, confirming the arrangements with regard to handover and reminding him of his right to appeal (pages 124-125). As Richard had agreed to carry out the handover his last day was 13 April 2006.

23. Not long after the meeting Richard e-mailed me with a query regarding his salary review. He (in common with a number of other staff, including Nicholas Wilkinson) had not received a salary increase in January 2006. I was surprised to receive the e-mail at that time as, although Richard did not agree with the decision, his concerns had been discussed with him earlier in the year and I believed the matter to be closed.

24. I am aware that Richard subsequently appealed the decision to dismiss him by reason of redundancy, but I had no further involvement in the matter.

25. I believe that we carried out a fair redundancy process in all the circumstances. Richard did not at any time prior to his dismissal question the basis of the proposal to create the new role of TAM EMEA nor did he question the selection criteria. As the proposal involved reducing the number of UK staff from three down to one and given that Toby took voluntary redundancy, we were in a situation where we needed to decide between two people. Nicholas had clearly demonstrated a greater level of competency in the skills that we felt were essential to the role and in particular the provision of a more customer focused service. In the absence of the selection criteria, there was a 50% chance that either Nicholas or Richard would be dismissed. However, it was clear when we looked at the skills of both Richard and Nicholas that Nicholas was better suited to the new role. I believe that we followed a fair procedure and given that there was no other suitable employment available within the company, the decision to dismiss Richard by reason of redundancy was fair in all the circumstances.

I believe the contents of this statement are true.