Part-time fitness instructor unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A tribunal found that Greenwich Leisure Ltd unfairly dismissed an 8-year employee during pandemic redundancies, due to flawed selection criteria and a lack of consultation.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #selection-criteria
- #unfair-procedure
- #lack-of-consultation
- #flawed-scoring
- #inadequate-appeal
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a part-time Fitness Instructor from 5 April 2012 to 20 November 2020.
- The respondent made around 500 redundancies due to the pandemic, including reducing Fitness Instructor FTE from 1.5 to 1 at Croydon.
- The claimant was scored against selection criteria by two managers, but was not given the criteria or scores during the process.
- The scoring used incomplete HR data, included absence that should have been excluded, and relied on a record from outside the 12-month reference period.
- The appeal was a paper review without reviewing scoring sheets or speaking to the claimant or managers.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but not discriminatory.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant began working as a part-time Fitness Instructor at Croydon Leisure Centre.
-
Maternity leave started
Claimant went on maternity leave with her twins.
-
Returned from maternity leave
Claimant returned to work after maternity leave.
-
Furloughed due to pandemic
Claimant was placed on furlough as the leisure centre closed.
-
Restructure considered
Management considered a restructure to achieve financial savings, leading to reduction in headcount.
-
At-risk letter sent
Claimant was informed she was at risk of redundancy and a consultation process would begin.
-
First consultation meeting
First consultation meeting held via Zoom; claimant was not given selection criteria or clear information.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant was told she had been selected for redundancy; no detailed scores were provided.
-
Redundancy letter sent
Claimant received letter with redundancy pay and leaving arrangements.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed, citing discrimination as a woman and mother.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal officer upheld the redundancy decision via paper review without reviewing scoring sheets.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the redundancy process was fair, including whether the selection criteria were reasonable, applied fairly, and whether consultation was adequate.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to procedural flaws: scoring used incomplete HR data and included absence that should have been excluded; the claimant was not given criteria or scores; the appeal was a paper review without reviewing scoring sheets.
Compensation to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must share selection criteria and scores with employees during redundancy consultation.
- Using incomplete or inaccurate data in scoring can render a redundancy process unfair.
- A paper appeal that does not review scoring sheets or speak to the employee is unlikely to be considered reasonable.
- Length of service (here 8 years) means employees are entitled to a thorough and transparent process.
A redundancy process that fell short
When Greenwich Leisure Ltd made around 500 staff redundant during the pandemic, the claimant – a part-time fitness instructor with eight years' service – was selected for redundancy. But the tribunal found that the process used to select her was so flawed that her dismissal was unfair.
The employer reduced Fitness Instructor hours at the Croydon centre from 1.5 full-time equivalents to 1. The claimant was scored against selection criteria by two managers, but was never shown the criteria or her scores. The scoring relied on incomplete HR data, included absence that should have been excluded, and used a record from outside the 12-month reference period. The appeal was a paper review that did not look at the scoring sheets or speak to the claimant or the managers.
What the employer could have done differently
A fair process would have started with sharing the selection criteria and scores with the claimant, giving her a chance to comment. The employer should have ensured the data used was accurate and complete, and excluded properly any absence that was not relevant. The appeal should have been a proper review, not a paper exercise that ignored the scoring sheets.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even in large-scale redundancies, each employee is entitled to a fair and transparent process. The tribunal did not find discrimination, but the procedural failings were enough to make the dismissal unfair. For employees facing redundancy, this case shows the importance of challenging unclear criteria and requesting full information about how decisions are made.
Similar cases
Dispatch supervisor made redundant without any consultation: unfair dismissal award
A dispatch supervisor with four years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without a proper selection pool, objective criteria, or any meaningful consultation. The tribunal awarded £661.95 in compensation.
Sales Executive made redundant after scoring was completed post-decision: unfair dismissal
A sales executive with 5 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer decided to make him redundant before applying any selection criteria. The tribunal awarded £8,079.20, reduced by 20% for the chance he might have been dismissed fairly.
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.
Panel beater dismissed in redundancy: small employer's 'pool of one' upheld
A Watford tribunal has ruled that a panel beater with three years' service was fairly dismissed when his employer, a four-person car repair shop, made him redundant as the only employee at risk. The decision highlights how small employers can follow a lighter process.