22 years' service, then dismissed by letter with no warning: redundancy unfair
A labelling worker with 22 years' service was handed a dismissal letter without any prior consultation. The tribunal found the redundancy unfair and awarded £2,616.71.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #lack-of-consultation
- #subjective-criteria
- #no-appraisals
- #fait-accompli
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent for 22 years as labelling/warehouse staff.
- The respondent decided to make redundancies in October 2021 due to Brexit and declining supply.
- The selection criteria were not objective and were not communicated to the claimant before dismissal.
- The claimant was presented with a dismissal letter on 14 February 2022 without prior consultation.
- The respondent did not consider alternative employment or reduced hours for the claimant.
- The claimant found a better-paid job starting 8 August 2022.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as labelling/warehouse staff.
-
Redundancy decision
Respondent decided to make redundancies affecting 15 repacking employees.
-
Selection scoring completed
Management completed scoring of employees using subjective criteria without consulting them.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant received a letter confirming her dismissal by reason of redundancy, effective 28 February 2022.
-
Meeting about selection
Claimant questioned the selection criteria and was given inconsistent reasons.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal, arguing lack of consultation and unfair selection.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended; she received 12 weeks' notice with 2 weeks worked and 10 weeks PILON.
-
Appeal rejected
Respondent rejected the appeal, maintaining the redundancy process was fair.
-
PILON period ended
Payment in lieu of notice covered until this date.
-
New job started
Claimant started a better-paid job, ending her period of loss.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a fair reason for dismissal, focusing on whether there was adequate consultation, fair selection criteria, and reasonable steps to find alternative employment.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The respondent had decided on redundancies in October 2021 but did not consult the claimant or inform her of the selection criteria before presenting a dismissal letter on 14 February 2022. The scoring was done subjectively by management without input from the claimant. No alternative roles or reduced hours were considered.
Compensation:
- Total award: £2,616.71
- Prescribed element (recoupable): £2,116.71
- Balance payable to claimant: £500.00
Lessons & takeaways
- Consultation before redundancy is not optional — even in a small business, employees must be warned and given a chance to comment on selection criteria.
- Subjective selection criteria are risky unless employees know them in advance and have a chance to challenge them.
- Long-serving employees (22 years here) are entitled to a particularly thorough process; a 'fait accompli' letter is almost certain to be unfair.
- Employers should actively consider alternative employment, including reduced hours or roles in associated companies.
A redundancy process that skipped the basics
This case shows what happens when an employer treats redundancy as a paperwork exercise rather than a fair process. The claimant had worked for PIE Pharma Limited for 22 years — a long and stable career in labelling and warehouse work. When the company decided to cut 15 repacking roles in October 2021, it did not tell the affected staff. Instead, management scored employees using subjective criteria without any consultation. The claimant only learned she was at risk when she received a dismissal letter on 14 February 2022, with no prior warning.
The tribunal noted that the respondent did not hold any meetings to discuss the redundancy, explain the selection criteria, or explore alternatives such as reduced hours or redeployment. When the claimant questioned the scoring the day after receiving the letter, she was given inconsistent reasons. Her appeal was rejected without meaningful review.
What the employer could have done differently
A fair redundancy process does not require perfection, but it does require basic steps: warn the employee, consult on the criteria and scoring, and consider alternatives. Here, the employer did none of these. The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was not within the range of reasonable responses, especially given the claimant's long service. Even a small family-run business must follow these steps.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees facing redundancy, this case reinforces that a lack of consultation and secretive scoring are strong indicators of unfair dismissal. For employers, it is a reminder that subjective criteria without employee input — and no attempt to find alternative work — will almost certainly fail a reasonableness test. The modest compensation (£2,616.71) reflects the claimant's quick re-employment in a better-paid job, but the principle is clear: process matters.
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 claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Kitchen manager dismissed without consultation in redundancy: unfair dismissal
A kitchen manager with two years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without any consultation or warning. The tribunal awarded £4,809.49 in compensation.