CEO made redundant after protected disclosures: procedural unfairness in rejecting reduced-hours alternative
A CEO with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer rejected his proposed reduced-hours alternative without proper consideration. The tribunal found the redundancy process procedurally flawed but applied a 75% Polkey deduction.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #whistleblowing
- #redundancy
- #polkey-deduction
- #jurisdiction-time-limit
- #costs-order
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as CEO from 1 July 2013 until 18 September 2020.
- The claimant made protected disclosures to Milton Keynes Council about a land transaction in 2019.
- The respondent proposed to make the CEO role redundant and buy senior executive time from the council.
- The claimant's whistleblowing detriment claims were dismissed as out of time.
- The claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim (whistleblowing) was dismissed.
- The claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded due to procedural unfairness in rejecting a reduced-hours alternative.
Timeline
-
Protected disclosure
Claimant made protected disclosure to Mr Proffitt and Mr Middleton regarding Greenleys transaction.
-
Greenleys review report
Independent report by Lambert Smith Hampton addressed claimant's concerns, finding no wrongdoing.
-
Board meeting on Bracey proposal
Respondent's Board discussed proposal to replace CEO with seconded council executive.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant told his role was at risk of redundancy; he suggested it was politically motivated.
-
Solicitor's letter
Claimant's solicitors asserted protected disclosures and detrimental treatment.
-
Claimant's alternative proposals
Claimant proposed reduced hours (1.5 days/week) to avoid redundancy.
-
Board decision to dismiss
Board rejected reduced-hours proposal, citing need for joint working with council.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was formally notified of redundancy.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard and rejected.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for 'some other substantial reason' (redundancy) was procedurally fair, and whether his whistleblowing claims were brought in time.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim but dismissed his whistleblowing claims.
- The whistleblowing detriment claims were dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented them within the primary time limit.
- The automatic unfair dismissal claim based on whistleblowing was dismissed; the tribunal found the protected disclosures were not the reason for dismissal.
- The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the board rejected the claimant's reduced-hours proposal (1.5 days/week) without adequate consultation or consideration.
- A Polkey deduction of 75% was applied, reflecting the likelihood that the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
- Compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must genuinely consider alternative proposals to redundancy, such as reduced hours, and document their reasoning.
- Whistleblowing claims must be brought within three months of the act complained of; delay can be fatal even if the underlying issues are serious.
- A Polkey deduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal finds dismissal was likely even with a fair process.
- Protected disclosures do not automatically make a dismissal unfair; the reason for dismissal must be the disclosure itself.
When a redundancy process goes wrong
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward redundancy can become procedurally unfair when an employer fails to properly consider an employee's alternative proposal. The claimant, a CEO with seven years' service, was told his role was at risk after the board decided to replace him with a seconded council executive. During consultation, he proposed working reduced hours of 1.5 days per week to avoid redundancy. The board rejected this without meaningful discussion, citing a need for 'joint working' with the council.
The tribunal found that while the redundancy reason itself was potentially fair, the process was flawed. The board had not adequately explored the reduced-hours option or consulted the claimant on its concerns. This failure made the dismissal procedurally unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided this outcome by engaging more thoroughly with the claimant's proposal. A fair process would have involved discussing the practicalities of reduced hours, considering whether the role could be reshaped, and giving the claimant a chance to address any objections. Instead, the board made a swift decision that the tribunal described as outside the range of reasonable responses.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy procedures must be genuine and not a rubber-stamping exercise. Even when an employer has a sound business case for redundancy, they must consider alternatives put forward by the employee. The 75% Polkey deduction reflects the tribunal's view that the claimant would likely have been dismissed anyway, but the procedural failure still led to a finding of unfairness. For employees, it highlights the importance of documenting alternative proposals and challenging dismissals where proper consideration is lacking.
Similar cases
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
Senior VP dismissed by email after missing final redundancy meeting due to mother's appointment
A senior vice-president was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused to reschedule a final redundancy consultation meeting, instead sending a dismissal email when he couldn't attend due to his mother's medical appointment. The tribunal awarded £658.71 in compensation.
Dismissed for redundancy after divorce talks: a hidden reason for unfair dismissal
A book-keeper and administrator was unfairly dismissed after her employer used redundancy as a pretext to end her employment following the breakdown of divorce settlement negotiations. The tribunal awarded £8,922.50.
Whistleblowing claim fails: redundancy was genuine business reorganisation
A box office administrator who claimed he was dismissed for raising concerns about theatre management lost his unfair dismissal case. The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.