Apprentice made redundant in flawed process: unfair dismissal and breach of contract
An electrical apprentice was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy selection process. The tribunal awarded £14,251 for loss of future prospects and the delay in qualifying.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #apprenticeship
- #polkey-deduction
- #wrongful-dismissal
- #future-prospects
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an apprentice from 15 June 2016 until 19 August 2020.
- The respondent made the claimant redundant due to a reduced need for electricians.
- The redundancy process was flawed: inadequate consultation, removal of length of service criterion, and lack of objective scoring.
- The claimant was not allowed to complete his apprenticeship, causing a one-year delay in qualifying.
- The tribunal found a 50% chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
Timeline
-
Start of apprenticeship
Claimant joined respondent as an apprentice under an apprenticeship agreement.
-
Learning agreement signed
Individual learning agreement with JTL and Mid Kent College, planned end date 15 September 2020.
-
Increased responsibility
Claimant provided with mobile phone, van, and worked with less supervision.
-
New contract as Electrical Improver
Claimant issued with statement of main terms as Electrical Improver from 1 September 2019, but remained an apprentice in practice.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy with 4 weeks' notice, effective 22 August 2020.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Truscott QC found claimant was an apprentice until 15 September 2020.
-
Merits hearing
Employment Judge Rea found unfair dismissal and breach of contract, awarding £14,251.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the apprentice was unfairly selected for redundancy and whether the early termination of his apprenticeship contract entitled him to damages for the delay in qualifying and loss of future earnings.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the apprentice was unfairly dismissed. The redundancy process was flawed: there was no meaningful consultation, the scoring criteria were changed to remove length of service, and the selection was not objective.
The tribunal also found that by dismissing him before his apprenticeship ended on 15 September 2020, the respondent breached the apprenticeship contract. This caused a one-year delay in qualifying, for which the claimant was awarded damages.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £0
- Compensatory award: calculated based on loss of earnings and future prospects, with a 50% Polkey reduction for the chance he would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
- Total award: £14,251
Lessons & takeaways
- Apprentices have special protections: terminating an apprenticeship early without good reason can lead to a breach of contract claim.
- Redundancy selection must be fair and objective – changing criteria mid-process or failing to consult properly can make a dismissal unfair.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, tribunals may reduce compensation if they think the employee would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process (Polkey reduction).
- Length of service can be a legitimate criterion in redundancy selection; removing it without good reason may indicate unfairness.
- Having a lay representative is possible, but the complexity of apprenticeship law may make legal advice valuable.
This case shows what can happen when an employer treats an apprenticeship like an ordinary job during a redundancy exercise. The apprentice had been with the company for four years and was due to complete his qualification in September 2020. Instead, he was dismissed in August 2020, just weeks before the end of his apprenticeship.
The tribunal found that the redundancy process was fundamentally flawed. The employer did not properly consult with the apprentice, changed the scoring criteria to remove length of service (which would have favoured him), and failed to apply objective selection methods. The result was an unfair dismissal.
The apprenticeship angle
What makes this case stand out is the separate claim for breach of the apprenticeship contract. An apprenticeship is not just a job – it is a fixed-term agreement with specific training obligations. By dismissing the apprentice early, the employer prevented him from completing his qualification, causing a one-year delay in becoming a qualified electrician. The tribunal awarded damages for that lost year and the impact on his future career prospects.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by following a fair redundancy process: consulting with the apprentice, using objective criteria that included his length of service, and considering alternatives such as delaying the redundancy until the apprenticeship ended. If the redundancy was unavoidable, the employer should have ensured the apprentice could finish his training elsewhere or provided notice that aligned with the apprenticeship end date.
Why this matters
For anyone in a similar position, this case is a reminder that apprentices have stronger contractual protections than ordinary employees. Employers cannot simply treat an apprenticeship as a temporary job that can be ended at will during a redundancy. The compensation here – £14,251 – reflects not just the loss of earnings but the long-term damage to career progression caused by an interrupted apprenticeship.
Similar cases
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.
Redundancy without process: food sales assistant awarded £12,651 after unfair dismissal
A food sales assistant dismissed by a butchers that went into liquidation has won £12,651 for unfair dismissal, redundancy and wrongful dismissal after the tribunal found the employer failed to follow proper procedures.
Unfair redundancy dismissal: 75% Polkey reduction for asbestos supervisor
An asbestos supervisor unfairly dismissed for redundancy was awarded £3,298 after a 75% Polkey reduction. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but applied a large reduction for the chance of fair dismissal.
Redundancy dismissal without process: employer's no-show leads to win
A former employee of Blamire Bakery Limited has won her claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal after being made redundant without proper process. The tribunal awarded £11,960.28.