21-year assistant manager loses redundancy claim despite long service
An assistant manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring lower than a colleague on selection criteria. The tribunal upheld Boots' process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an assistant manager from 27 February 1999 to 31 August 2020.
- The respondent identified a redundancy situation due to reduced customer footfall during the Covid-19 pandemic.
- The claimant was placed in a redundancy pool with one other assistant manager at the Edgware store.
- The claimant scored 27 out of 84 on the selection criteria, while the other assistant manager scored 54.
- The claimant was offered and attended interviews for six alternative vacancies but was unsuccessful.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was considered by Ms Visram and rejected.
Timeline
-
CEO announcement and staff meeting
The respondent's CEO announced changes due to Covid-19. Ms Annan held a staff meeting to discuss proposed reduction in assistant manager hours.
-
Redundancy warning letter
The claimant was sent a letter warning of possible redundancy and inviting him to a consultation meeting.
-
First consultation meeting
Ms Annan discussed the proposed scoring criteria with the claimant. The claimant had not completed his own scoring beforehand.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant attended a second consultation meeting with his union representative and was provided with a list of available vacancies.
-
Provisional selection for redundancy
The claimant received a letter confirming his provisional selection for redundancy.
-
Final meeting and dismissal confirmed
The claimant's employment was terminated by letter following a meeting on the same day.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment with Boots ended.
-
Acas early conciliation concluded
Acas early conciliation commenced and concluded.
-
Claim form submitted
The claimant submitted a claim for unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Hearing day 1
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions.
-
Hearing day 2 and judgment
The tribunal concluded the hearing and gave oral judgment dismissing the claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for redundancy was fair, considering whether the employer adequately warned and consulted, used reasonable selection criteria, and took reasonable steps to find alternative employment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal. It found that Boots had a genuine redundancy situation due to the Covid-19 pandemic and followed a fair process. The claimant scored 27 out of 84 on the selection criteria, while the other assistant manager scored 54. The claimant was offered interviews for six alternative roles but was unsuccessful. The appeal was properly considered. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed if the redundancy process is properly followed.
- Selection criteria must be objective and applied consistently; scoring differences alone do not make a dismissal unfair.
- Employers should offer suitable alternative vacancies and give employees a fair chance to apply.
- A fair consultation process includes warning, discussing criteria, and considering employee input.
A redundancy process that passed the test
This case shows that a well-structured redundancy process can withstand scrutiny even when it results in the dismissal of a long-serving employee. The assistant manager had worked for Boots for 21 years, but when the pandemic reduced footfall, the company needed to cut assistant manager hours. The claimant was placed in a pool with one other assistant manager, and both were scored on objective criteria. The claimant scored significantly lower and was provisionally selected for redundancy.
What Boots did right
Boots warned the claimant of possible redundancy, held consultation meetings, and allowed him to bring a union representative. The selection criteria were discussed and applied consistently. The claimant was offered interviews for six alternative vacancies, though he was unsuccessful. The appeal was handled by a different manager, Ms Visram, who considered his concerns and rejected them. The tribunal noted that while the claimant disagreed with the scoring, the process was fair overall.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant's case was weakened by his failure to prepare a witness statement and by relying on a statement from a friend who had no direct involvement. The tribunal gave little weight to that evidence. The claimant also withdrew his concession that the reason was redundancy, but the tribunal found it was redundancy anyway. A more focused approach on procedural flaws might have helped, but the evidence showed Boots had followed a reasonable process.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that tribunals will not substitute their own judgment for that of the employer if the process is fair. Long service does not guarantee a different outcome if the redundancy is genuine and the selection criteria are objective. Employees facing redundancy should engage fully with the consultation process, consider alternative roles, and ensure they present their case clearly if they later challenge the decision.
Similar cases
Redundancy during restructuring: tribunal finds process fair despite unsuccessful alternative role applications
A Delivery Programme Manager who lost his job in a large-scale restructure at Raytheon Systems Ltd has failed to prove his redundancy was unfair. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation and a fair process.
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.
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.
Warehouse team leader loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy alternative role dispute
A warehouse team leader with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a misunderstanding over an alternative role offer, the tribunal has ruled.