Redundancy dismissal upheld after employee refused selection interviews
A Client Account Manager with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after refusing to attend selection interviews and declining an alternative role. The tribunal upheld the dismissal by a majority, finding the redundancy genuine and the process reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #selection-panel
- #consultation-process
- #alternative-employment
- #discrimination-time-limits
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Client Account Manager from 23 July 2018 until 30 September 2022.
- The respondent restructured the Camden contract, reducing two CAM roles to one, due to client cost-saving demands.
- The claimant refused to attend three scheduled selection interviews despite encouragement.
- The claimant was offered alternative roles but declined the OSM position after a trial period.
- The tribunal found the redundancy situation genuine and the dismissal fair by a majority.
- All discrimination claims were dismissed as out of time and lacking evidence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Client Account Manager on the Lewisham contract.
-
Transferred to Camden contract
Claimant moved to Camden contract to work under Senior Account Manager Paolo Orezzi.
-
Capability procedure started
Respondent placed claimant on capability procedure due to performance concerns.
-
Final Improvement Notice issued
Claimant received a Final Improvement Notice, later reduced to a Written Improvement Notice on appeal.
-
Appeal determination
Philip Pughe upheld appeal, expressing confidence in claimant's ability with support.
-
Kyki Kim-Bajko appointed as second CAM
Camden requested a second CAM; Ms Kim-Bajko appointed as primary client contact.
-
Ms Kim-Bajko resigned
Claimant informed he would not be sole CAM; Mr Dadswell appointed as replacement.
-
Camden requested cost savings
Camden asked respondent to reduce non-revenue generating management posts.
-
Redundancy proposal announced
Mr Pughe informed claimant and Mr Dadswell of proposed restructure reducing two CAMs to one.
-
Employment ended
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy after declining OSM role.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair because the redundancy process was flawed, and whether the employee was discriminated against on grounds of sex, race, or religion.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. By a majority, it found the redundancy dismissal fair. The employee had refused to attend three selection interviews and declined an alternative role after a trial. The discrimination claims were dismissed as out of time and lacking evidence.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Engaging with the redundancy process, including attending selection interviews, is crucial; refusal can undermine a claim of unfair dismissal.
- Employers should document genuine redundancy situations and offer suitable alternative roles; a trial period can help demonstrate suitability.
- Discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the act complained of; delays can be fatal even if the claim has merit.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible but challenging; legal advice can help navigate procedural and evidential issues.
What this case shows
A Client Account Manager with four years' service was dismissed after his employer restructured a client contract to reduce costs. The tribunal upheld the dismissal by a majority, finding that the redundancy was genuine and the process reasonable. The employee had refused to attend three scheduled selection interviews and later declined an alternative role after a trial period. The dissenting member thought the consultation was inadequate, but the majority considered the employer's efforts sufficient.
What could have been done differently
The employee's refusal to engage in the selection process significantly weakened his case. Attending the interviews and raising concerns during consultation might have led to a different outcome. The employer, NSL Limited, could have done more to encourage participation, but the tribunal accepted that they had given clear warnings and opportunities.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that tribunals will respect genuine business decisions to restructure, even when the process is not perfect. Employees who refuse to participate in redundancy procedures risk losing their right to challenge the fairness of their dismissal. It also highlights the strict time limits for discrimination claims — all such claims were dismissed as out of time, regardless of their merits.
Similar cases
CCTV operatives made redundant: fair dismissal after consultation and alternative roles offered
Three long-serving CCTV operatives who refused to apply for ringfenced Community Guardian roles were fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal upheld the employer's consultation process and offer of alternative employment.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: employer's process found fair despite 57% salary cut offer
A Leeds tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from an associate director made redundant after his role was restructured. The judge found the employer's consultation and selection process was fair, even though the only alternative roles offered came with a salary cut from £70,000 to £30,000.
Redundancy dismissal of senior scientist: pool of one and consultation found fair
A senior research scientist with 11 years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after his employer restructured. The tribunal found the redundancy process, including a pool of one, was fair.
Site manager dismissed after failed trial period: redundancy process upheld
A site manager with two years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a trial period in a lower-paid role was deemed unsuccessful. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.