WITNESS STATEMENT AS READ BY SIMON WOODWARD 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, SIMON WOODWARD of Autonomy House, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WZ will say as follows:

I am Chief Executive Officer of ANT Software Limited. I have been employed by ANT for 9 years and have held the role of CEO throughout that period

ANT operates in a rapidly evolving market which means we are constantly required to evaluate the way in which the business is run in order to respond to the ever changing needs of the market and our customers. We place great importance on gathering feedback from customers and implementing appropriate suggestions so that we can maintain an edge over our competitors. The way in which we service our clients' technical needs is of course critical to the success of the business.

Having initially considered reviewing the provision of customer support in late 2005, we came back to it again at the beginning of 2006 because it was becoming clear from customer feedback that a geographically dedicated resource which could provide support to the sales process at both a pre-sales and post-sales stage was necessary. We are a small company which has developed quite rapidly over the last 9 years. Although historically there were good reasons why different aspects of customer support were provided by the Technical Support Manager, Customer Support Engineers and the Technical Account Managers, it was apparent that this was no longer the most effective way of providing a cohesive service to our customers. The Board of Directors agreed that the Sales and Engineering Directors should conduct a review. They duly presented their proposal, namely that a new role merging the relevant aspects of the Technical Support Manager, Customer Support Engineer and Technical Account Manager roles should be created. They explained that the new role (Technical Account Manager EMEA role) would eliminate the existing overlap and improve customer liaison and that they considered that it would only be necessary to employ one person in this role. We noted that three people were affected by the proposal and that two people would therefore potentially be redundant.

Having considered the proposal, the Board approved the restructure in mid-March 2006 (pages 80-81) and it was agreed that the Engineering Director, Charles Maltby, would meet with the staff affected and consult with them regarding the proposal. I had no further involvement in the process until the Sales Director, Colin Shave, informed me of the fact that Richard Ross-Langley had been made redundant on 6 April 2006 and that Nicholas Wilkinson had been appointed to the new TAM EMEA role. I was aware that Charles had informed Richard that he had the right to appeal against the decision to dismiss him by reason of redundancy.

On 25 April 2006, our HR manager, Suzanne Hopkins, informed me that Richard Ross-Langley had e-mailed her indicating he wished to appeal against the decision to terminate his employment as he believed it was unfair. He did not give any further explanation at the time. Suzanne Hopkins responded and asked him to set out his grounds of appeal and confirmed that she would liaise with me to arrange an appeal meeting. Unfortunately Richard did not explain his reasons and simply said he had been unfairly selected for redundancy. I subsequently e-mailed Richard and arranged to meet with him for an appeal hearing on 3 May 2006 (pages 158-160).

I duly attended the appeal meeting with Matthew Lobo, who had commenced employment as the company's General Counsel on 3 April 2006. Richard was accompanied at the meeting by a colleague, Piers Wombwell. I began by asking Richard to outline his concerns. Minutes of the appeal meeting are at pages 163 to 200 of the bundle.

Richard asked whether the redundancies were made because customer support was not needed or to save money. I explained that it was not to save money but was to focus on the changes in the provision of customer services which were customer driven. Richard referred to the fact that when changes had been made to customer support previously, redundancies had not had to be made. I explained that some changes in organisational structure require redundancies whereas others do not. I said that what happened on one occasion did not influence what happened on another occasion. It was a question of how to achieve the Company's objectives and goals in any particular circumstance. I explained that the previous reorganisation had not worked and therefore we had made changes to adapt to differing circumstances given that markets had changed over the last few years in ways which had not been anticipated. I also explained that there had been a general discussion of how this would be achieved at Board level but the detail of the proposal had been delegated to Charles Maltby and Colin Shave.

Richard queried the fact that the company had recently recruited other people. I explained that we had not recruited people to carry out the same roles as anyone who had been made redundant but had recruited to fill different roles. None of those roles were suitable alternative employment for anyone who had been made redundant. We had recruited an Assistant Accountant who started on 3 April 2006 and a Systems Architect who started on 8 May 2006.

Richard referred to the timing of a Board meeting and the decision to make him redundant. I explained that the decision regarding redundancy had not been made at the Board meeting. I explained that it was Charles and Colin who were carrying out the redundancy selection process.

Richard then went on to refer to his salary review and said that he understood that this too had been discussed at the Board meeting. I explained that it had not been raised as salary issues were not discussed at Board meetings. Richard then asked me if his salary was related to his redundancy. I explained that salary was not relevant to the decisions made in respect of the restructure and had nothing to do with his redundancy. Richard seemed to think that he had been selected for redundancy because he had asked for a salary review. I attempted to explain to him that there was no necessary connection between salary reviews and selection for redundancy. I explained that he was not the only person who had not received a salary increase (in common with a number of other staff, including Nicholas Wilkinson). I also reiterated that his selection was not based on his salary but on an assessment of his skills and those of Nicholas Wilkinson, as compared against the selection criteria.

Richard then asked why he had been selected. I explained to him that we had made the decision to reorganise and this inevitably had an effect on various individuals. I said that we had discussed the proposals with each of them and had done the best we could but we could only appoint one person to the role. Richard queried the fact that parts of his old role were now being carried out partly by the Technical Account Manager and partly by other people. I explained that the TAM EMEA was the new role which was created when the old roles that were previously carried out by himself, Toby Douglass and Nicholas Wilkinson, were restructured - and therefore those aspects of the three roles which we felt needed to be continued were part of that new role, but certain other incidental duties which the three of them had previously performed may well have been picked up by other staff.

Richard questioned why we had not considered the Technical Account Managers who are based and reside in the USA and Asia in the reorganisation. I explained that the redundancies did not affect those two geographical markets but affected only the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) market which was managed from the UK and that those two employees were not part of the selection pool in relation to a UK post. Richard then said that we had asked him to compete for the role which Nicholas Wilkinson was already doing. I explained that the TAM EMEA role was not the same as the one Nicholas Wilkinson had previously been doing but that it combined a number of activities that had previously been carried out by both the Customer Support Engineers and the Technical Account Manager.

Richard then stated that he had been told that the TAM EMEA role was the only role available. Again I was surprised by this given that I was aware from my discussions with Charles Maltby that alternative roles had been discussed with him. I asked him what other roles he thought were available. He said that he could do many things including the accounts role and legal role that Charles Maltby and Suzanne Hopkins had discussed with him during their consultation meetings with him. I discussed his skills with him and attempted to explain that I did not think he had the necessary qualifications or skills to carry out either the accounts or legal role. The accounts role has been filled by an AAT Qualified (2001) person with 8 years accounting experience. The legal role has been filled by a qualified barrister with 10 years' legal experience. Both of them had already been recruited some months previously albeit they did not start until April 2006 due to the notice they were required to give their previous employers. Richard also referred to the fact that we have been investing in engineering. I confirmed that we had recruited a System Architect but that again this role had been filled prior to the reorganisation affecting his role and in any event the requirements of the Systems Architect role were well beyond Richard's capabilities. The Systems Architect role was filled by a person who has excellent skills, industry experience and academic qualifications as well as holding a number of patents and has published works relevant to the Systems Architect role.

Richard queried how we had chosen the roles to be made redundant. I explained that we had reorganised to meet market needs and customer requirements better, and created roles that met our customers' needs. I explained that in his case the role that matched his skills had more than one applicant but that we had pooled all of the relevant people and unfortunately only one person could be selected for the TAM EMEA role. I tried to explain that - given that Toby had taken voluntary redundancy - we were left deciding between two people, one of whom was potentially redundant. Richard said that we had ended up with the same number of people. I explained that we had not ended up with the same number of people carrying out the customer support role but that we had recruited in other areas, such as the legal role. Richard attempted to argue that he would have applied for the legal role as he had done some legal editing before and this was part of his job description. I explained that the General Counsel role required a variety of formal qualifications and experience including corporate governance and investor relations and that this was not appropriate given his skills. He then said he would prefer an engineering role. He said that there were release management roles. In fact there had been no stand alone release management role and those duties have been absorbed by another role in the engineering team.

I then queried whether Richard believed that the market had not changed. He agreed that it had but said that the technology was the same. He said that he felt that his competence in infrastructure was valuable. I explained that nobody was questioning his competence but that we had decided to reorganise and, in this particular instance, this meant that two people were at risk of redundancy and an objective decision had been reached as to who should be appointed to the role.

Richard then started to criticise the executive decision to restructure and went on to say: "I am more valuable than the Executive Directors are, the Executives have had pay rises and large salaries. It is no surprise I am redundant." He then proceeded to criticise my running of the business and the performance of the Executive Directors. I was surprised by this and tried to explain that if I were not doing my job properly then I would be dismissed and that the shareholders had the power to remove me if they wished to. Richard then launched into a personal attack and referred to me as "a large drain on resources". He said that the Executives were "running the Company for the benefit of themselves and that's why you've made me redundant, therefore it is unfair selection."

Richard never questioned the need to reorganise nor the basis of the selection prior to the decision to dismiss him. It was only after he had been dismissed that he raised these concerns. His concerns were not in fact in relation to the fact that Nicholas Wilkinson had been selected for the role over him but that he seemed to feel that he had been made redundant so that the directors could be paid more. He also repeatedly referred to the fact that his salary review was inconsistent with those of the directors but he did not seem to appreciate the distinction between our respective roles.

I repeatedly explained to him that the reorganisation was to give the Company the best chance to succeed utilising the skills of the people best able to do those roles, given that we are operating in an exceedingly competitive market. Richard then referred to the selection criteria and queried the fact that technical knowledge did not include Fresco knowledge. (Fresco is the name of the Company's historically most important embedded software product.) I explained that it was a key requirement for us to be able to understand customers' technical requests rather than how our own product works and that it was a question of interfacing our own capability with their needs. I explained that this was a combination of technical understanding and understanding customer needs. I referred to the fact that he had not queried the criteria at any time during the process, notwithstanding the fact that he had been given a copy and was asked if he had any queries.

I gave Richard a copy of the scores that had been given to him by Charles Maltby and Colin Shave. He said that Colin Shave did not know him personally and that Charles Maltby did not know the technology. I do not agree that Charles Maltby, as the Engineering Director, does not know the technology the Company deals with. Charles has been employed as the Engineering Director since January 2005 and has played a key role in the development of the Company's products and strategy during that time. I explained my understanding that it had been decided that it was not appropriate for Line Managers to conduct the selection as a greater degree of objectivity was required hence the reason the two directors heading up the sales and engineering teams carried out the scoring.

The core skills for the new role were those relating to customer focus, interpersonal skills, the ability to define a customer's problem and deliver an appropriate solution for them. I explained to him that the reason he had not scored as well was because he was not as good at understanding customer needs and identifying solutions that matched customers' technical requirements and expectations. He referred to the fact that he thought his competency was demonstrated by grades on courses and that he was a fast learner. He also referred to business development work that he had done. I explained that the role which he was being considered for was not a business development role in itself, but was in support of business development by supporting customer needs.

Richard queried some of his scores. For example, he thought he should have received five out of five for experience and knowledge. He also said he thought he should not have received four or five out of five for problem solving. I said that I could not comment on the specifics of Charles' and Colin's scores as this was obviously their own assessment but my assessment was that problem solving was not one of his strongest areas. In my experience he was good at solving his definition of what the problem was but this may not be the actual problem. I said that I was satisfied that Charles and Colin had carried out an objective assessment of the scores that should be awarded. I confirmed that I was satisfied that the process had been conducted fairly and the meeting concluded very shortly afterwards.

It seemed to me that Richard had only become dissatisfied with the decision once he realised that it was he who had been selected for redundancy. Until that point he had been happy with the process which was carried out. His main focus in the appeal meeting was to criticise the senior management of the company. He did not seem able to accept that, when making decisions about the future direction and focus of the company, the Directors had to look at the overall impact for the company which unfortunately sometimes means making decisions which are disliked by some individuals. He had previously confirmed that he understood the need for the restructure and it was only when he was selected that he questioned the decision.

I was satisfied that Colin Shave and Charles Maltby were independent and objective in their assessment of both Nicholas and Richard. Charles and Suzanne Hopkins had discussed alternative employment with Richard. Richard had not been interested in the Assistant Accountant role at the time. Although he had expressed interest in the General Counsel role, he did not have the necessary legal qualifications or background that we required for that role. Although we had recruited a systems Architect prior to his selection for redundancy, Richard did not express any interest in that role and indeed it did not match his skill set.

Having considered all of the points raised, I decided to uphold the decision to terminate Richard's employment by reason of redundancy.

A customer driven review of the business led to our decision to restructure our sales and customer support functions to provide a more cohesive approach to customer service. The staff affected were duly consulted regarding selection and potential redundancies. I do not therefore consider that Mr Ross-Langley was unfairly dismissed as he alleged, or at all.

Even if the dismissal was unfair, I note that Richard has mitigated any loss. His last working day with ANT was 13 April 2006. On termination of his employment Richard was paid in lieu of notice for the period up to 18 May 2006. He also received £2,175 statutory redundancy pay and £1,000 ex-gratia payment as a gesture of goodwill (pages 124-125). In the light of Richard's background, had he wished to, I do not think he would have had any difficulty finding a new job which would have paid him the same or indeed more than he was paid by ANT. However, I note that he chose to work for a company in which he is the Managing Director and major shareholder, Mine of Information Ltd. His partner is the other director and shareholder. He states that the company was previously a computer bookseller but is now an independent computer consultancy. He has indicated that the company currently has a 6 month contract for the period 5 June to 30 November 2006. Richard has stated that he is unsure what will happen on the expiry of his current contract but that he thinks he may have some months without earnings. However in the light of Richard's industry contacts, I do not anticipate that he will have any difficulty in obtaining future business earning at least as much as he earned with ANT and I would anticipate that he has taken steps to secure future business prior to the expiry of the existing contract. I also believe that the job market for IT staff is generally buoyant in Cambridge and, as Richard lives within reasonable commuting distance of London, he is able to access the large job market there.

I believe the contents of this statement are true.