CCTV operatives made redundant: fair dismissal after consultation and alternative roles offered

This case shows how a carefully managed redundancy process can protect an employer from unfair dismissal claims, even when long-serving employees lose their jobs. The three claimants had worked for the organisation for between 10 and 15 years as CCTV operatives. When the employer decided to end its CCTV monitoring contract and replace the team with Community Guardians — a role that involved more community engagement and less live camera monitoring — the employees were placed at risk of redundancy.

The employer began consulting in June 2020, holding meetings and issuing briefing notes. Crucially, the new Community Guardian roles were ringfenced for the CCTV team, meaning only they could apply. The employer also offered a 12-week trial period and pay protection to ease the transition. However, the claimants did not apply for the roles, arguing they were fundamentally different from their previous work.

The tribunal accepted that the roles were different — the Community Guardian role involved more patrols and community interaction, while the CCTV role was mainly monitoring cameras. But the tribunal found that the employer had acted reasonably throughout. It had warned the employees, consulted them, offered alternative employment with protections, and only dismissed them after they chose not to apply.

What the employer did right

The employer's approach offers a template for handling redundancies. It commissioned a review, consulted the union, held individual and group meetings, and responded to feedback by increasing the number of ringfenced roles. It also provided one-to-one redeployment sessions. The tribunal noted that the employer had gone 'above and beyond' in some respects.

Why the result matters

For employees, this case is a reminder that redundancy is not automatically unfair, even if you disagree with the business decision behind it. The tribunal will focus on the process, not the commercial judgment. If you are offered a suitable alternative role, you should seriously consider it — and if you reject it, you need to show that the role was not suitable or that the employer acted unreasonably. Here, the claimants' failure to apply for the ringfenced roles was a key factor in the tribunal's decision.

For employers, the case confirms that a thorough consultation process, combined with a genuine offer of alternative employment, can successfully defend a redundancy dismissal. The key is to document every step and to listen to employee concerns, even if you ultimately decide to proceed with the redundancy.