30-year employee dismissed by email: redundancy procedure found unfair
An administrative assistant with 30 years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to follow a fair redundancy procedure. The tribunal awarded £2,907.92.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #modernisation
- #small-employer
- #30-years-service
- #no-written-contract
- #acas-code-not-applicable
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent for 30 years as the sole employee.
- The respondent modernised its operations, reducing the claimant's workload.
- The claimant was dismissed for redundancy after an email exchange about training.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to lack of fair procedure.
- The claimant's age and disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
- The respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Mr Yuille, initially as a sole trader, later transferring to the respondent company.
-
Health issues began
The claimant started experiencing earache, which later spread to head and neck pain.
-
Lockdown and furlough
The claimant was furloughed for three months due to the COVID-19 pandemic, receiving full pay.
-
Return to work
The claimant returned to work after furlough, finding the office had changed significantly.
-
Hospitalisation
The claimant was hospitalised for a blood infection and was absent for about three weeks.
-
Return from sick leave
The claimant returned to work after her hospitalisation.
-
Training request
The claimant asked for formal training on new systems; Mr Yuille offered training one topic at a time.
-
Email expressing concerns
The claimant emailed Mr Yuille expressing concerns about changes and fear of redundancy.
-
Dismissal
At a meeting, the claimant called Mr Yuille a bully; he dismissed her on the spot for redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was unfair due to lack of fair procedure, and whether it was tainted by age or disability discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but dismissed the age and disability discrimination claims.
- Compensatory award: £1,899.92
- Failure to provide written particulars: £1,008.00
- Total award: £2,907.92
The tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning the claimant would have been dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed, so only a compensatory award was made.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even in a small company with a single employee, a fair redundancy process is required, including consultation and consideration of alternatives.
- Length of service is a key factor — a 30-year employee deserves a more thorough process than a quick email exchange.
- Employers should provide written particulars of employment to avoid additional penalties.
- Discrimination claims require evidence of a protected characteristic being a cause of dismissal; here, the tribunal found redundancy was the genuine reason.
A 30-year career ended by email
This case shows how even a long and apparently harmonious working relationship can unravel when an employer fails to follow basic procedural fairness. The administrative assistant had worked for the same company for three decades, initially for the owner as a sole trader and later for the limited company. After the business modernised and her workload reduced, she was dismissed for redundancy following a brief email exchange about training.
What went wrong
The tribunal found that the employer, Independent Inspections UK Limited, did not carry out any meaningful consultation, did not consider alternative roles, and did not follow a fair selection process. The dismissal was communicated abruptly during a meeting where the claimant called the owner a bully. While the tribunal accepted that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal, the lack of procedure made it unfair.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that small employers are not exempt from fair procedures. The fact that the claimant was the only employee did not excuse the lack of consultation. The tribunal also highlighted the importance of providing written particulars of employment, which the respondent had failed to do, resulting in an additional award. The discrimination claims failed because there was no evidence that age or disability played a part in the decision — the redundancy was genuine, even if handled badly.
Similar cases
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.
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.
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.
Theatre manager with 18 years' service dismissed on capability grounds: disability and unfair dismissal claims fail
A theatre manager who was dismissed after two long periods of sickness absence lost her claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, but won a small holiday pay award.