22-year employee unfairly dismissed after Boots failed to consider redeployment
A customer adviser with 22 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Boots after a redundancy exercise that failed to properly explore alternative roles. The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but dismissed race-related complaints.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #redeployment
- #long-service
- #stress-at-work
- #communication-style
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Customer Adviser from 13 January 2001 until 30 May 2021.
- The respondent conducted a redundancy exercise due to COVID-19, needing to reduce 40 hours from 77 at the Sheerness store.
- The claimant was scored by her line manager Carola Suteu and then rescored by former manager Julie Brooker.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 30 May 2021.
- The tribunal found that the respondent failed to take sufficient steps to consider redeployment, making the dismissal unfair.
- The tribunal dismissed claims of harassment related to race and victimisation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Boots as a Customer Adviser.
-
Transferred to Sheerness store
Claimant transferred to the Sheerness store.
-
March 2019 incident
Carola Suteu shouted at the claimant in an incident involving a roll cage.
-
Racial abuse by customer
A customer racially abused the claimant; the incident was reported to police.
-
CD key incident
Ms Suteu rebuked the claimant for shouting when asking for controlled drug keys.
-
Lateness incident
Claimant was late due to train changes; Ms Suteu spoke aggressively and said she would not be paid.
-
Second grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance about bullying, harassment and victimisation by Ms Suteu.
-
Voluntary redundancy exercise opened
Respondent opened voluntary redundancy applications; claimant was not interested.
-
Annual leave request refused
Ms Suteu told claimant 'I don't think you will be here' when asked for holiday; claimant signed off sick.
-
Desktop scoring completed
Ms Suteu scored the claimant 27/48; later rescored by Ms Brooker at 24/48.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for redundancy was fair, and whether she was subjected to harassment related to race or victimisation during her employment.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. Boots had conducted a redundancy exercise to reduce hours at the Sheerness store, but failed to adequately consider redeployment options for the claimant, who had 22 years of service. This failure made the dismissal unfair.
However, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of harassment related to race and victimisation, finding that the conduct she complained of was not related to her race and that she had not been victimised for raising grievances.
No compensation was awarded at this stage; the remedy will be determined at a separate hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must actively consider redeployment opportunities before making a long-serving employee redundant, even in a genuine redundancy situation.
- A failure to explore alternative roles can render an otherwise fair redundancy process unfair.
- Long service is a relevant factor when assessing whether an employer's actions were reasonable.
- Raising a grievance does not automatically protect an employee from being selected for redundancy if the selection is fair and unrelated to the grievance.
When redundancy becomes unfair: the redeployment duty
This case illustrates a common pitfall in redundancy exercises: focusing on the selection process while neglecting the duty to consider redeployment. The claimant, a customer adviser who had worked for Boots for 22 years, was dismissed after a scoring exercise reduced her role. The tribunal found that while the redundancy situation itself was genuine, Boots failed to take sufficient steps to see if she could be placed in another role within the organisation.
For employees with long service, the expectation is that employers will make a reasonable effort to find alternative employment. In this case, the tribunal noted that the respondent did not adequately explore available vacancies or consider the claimant's skills and experience. This oversight was enough to make the dismissal unfair, even though the redundancy scoring was not challenged.
What could have been done differently
Boots could have avoided this outcome by conducting a more thorough search for alternative roles and documenting their efforts. A simple check of internal vacancies and a discussion with the claimant about her preferences might have satisfied the duty. The tribunal's decision reinforces that the redeployment obligation is not a tick-box exercise, especially when the employee has a long service record.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees facing redundancy, this case highlights the importance of raising redeployment as an issue early. If an employer fails to consider alternative roles, it can be a strong basis for an unfair dismissal claim, even if the selection process itself was fair. For employers, it serves as a reminder that a genuine redundancy situation does not automatically justify dismissal without a proper search for alternatives.
Similar cases
20-year manager dismissed for capability after employer refused to adjust role for disability
A Global Governance Risk and Compliance Manager with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after GlaxoSmithKline failed to make reasonable adjustments for her hand disability. The tribunal awarded £24,785 for injury to feelings.
Café manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy and missed vacancy
A café manager with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to inform her of a sales assistant vacancy during redundancy consultation. The tribunal awarded £560.28 after applying a 66.7% Polkey reduction.
21-year teacher loses unfair dismissal claim after redundancy consultation
A Subject Leader with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed when her school restructured its EAL department. The tribunal found the consultation and consideration of alternative roles were reasonable.
17-year employee loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy scoring
A workshop planning co-ordinator with 17 years' service failed to prove his redundancy selection was unfair or discriminatory. The tribunal found Jaguar Land Rover's process was reasonable.