Systems manager with 40 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy decided before consultation
A systems manager with 40 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer decided to eliminate his unique role before any consultation. The tribunal applied a 67% Polkey reduction, meaning compensation will be significantly reduced.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #unique-role
- #fait-accompli
- #polkey-reduction
- #enhanced-redundancy-pay
Key facts
- Mr Wade was employed from 5 April 1982 until his dismissal on 7 October 2020.
- His role as Systems Manager involved recommissioning PDAs, a unique role within Loomis.
- In April 2020, Loomis permanently transferred the PDA recommissioning work to branches, making Mr Wade redundant.
- Loomis did not consult Mr Wade before removing his work; consultation began in September 2020 after the decision was made.
- Mr Wade claimed entitlement to an enhanced redundancy payment (ERP) of 3 weeks' pay per year capped at 20 years, but the tribunal found he was not entitled.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to lack of consultation but applied a 67% Polkey reduction.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Wade began employment with a predecessor company, later transferring to Loomis UK Ltd.
-
Alleged ERP meeting
A meeting was held at St Albans where some managers were allegedly given letters entitling them to enhanced redundancy pay. Mr Wade claimed he attended, but the tribunal found he did not.
-
Appraisal notes plan to streamline PDA repairs
Mr Wade's annual appraisal recorded a plan to incorporate PDA repair processes into a new platform, indicating Loomis was considering changes to his role.
-
PDAs redirected to Mr Wade's home
Loomis arranged for repaired PDAs to be sent to Mr Wade's home for recommissioning during the pandemic.
-
Mr Wade placed on furlough
Mr Wade agreed to be furloughed under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
-
PDA recommissioning process transferred
Mr Wade was asked to provide instructions for recommissioning PDAs, which were then used by branches, effectively removing his unique role.
-
New PDA repair procedure announced
Loomis announced a permanent change: branches would now receive PDAs directly and perform the recommissioning themselves.
-
Email from Operations Director lists Mr Wade for redundancy
Stefan Wikman emailed Pieter De Beer listing Mr Wade as one of four employees to be made redundant, before any consultation.
-
Mr Wade informed he is at risk of redundancy
Loomis formally notified Mr Wade that his position was at risk and invited him to consultation meetings.
-
Mr Wade dismissed by reason of redundancy
Loomis confirmed Mr Wade's dismissal, offering statutory redundancy pay. Mr Wade did not appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Loomis acted reasonably in dismissing the systems manager for redundancy, given that the decision to eliminate his role was made before any consultation, and whether he was contractually entitled to an enhanced redundancy payment.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the systems manager was unfairly dismissed because Loomis failed to consult him before deciding to make his role redundant. However, the tribunal found that even with proper consultation, there was a 67% chance he would have been dismissed anyway, so any compensatory award will be reduced by that percentage.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for an enhanced redundancy payment, finding that the systems manager had not proved he was contractually entitled to it.
- Unfair dismissal: liability established, but compensatory award reduced by 67% (Polkey reduction)
- Enhanced redundancy payment: claim dismissed
- No contributory fault found
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consult employees before making a final decision to make a role redundant, even if the business need seems clear.
- Long-serving employees with unique roles are particularly vulnerable to 'fait accompli' redundancies, which tribunals will scrutinise closely.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the employer can show that a fair process would likely have led to the same outcome.
- Claims for enhanced redundancy payments must be supported by clear contractual evidence, such as written policies or consistent past practice.
When a redundancy decision is made before consultation
This case highlights what happens when an employer decides to eliminate a role before speaking to the employee. The systems manager had worked for Loomis UK Limited for 40 years, in a unique role recommissioning PDAs. In April 2020, without warning, the company transferred his work to branches and placed him on furlough. By the time formal consultation began in September, the decision had already been made.
The tribunal found this approach unfair. Even though the redundancy situation was genuine, Loomis should have consulted the systems manager before removing his work. The lack of meaningful consultation meant the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
What Loomis could have done differently
Loomis could have informed the systems manager of the proposed changes and invited his input before implementing them. A fair process would have involved discussing alternatives, considering redeployment, and giving him a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome. Instead, the company presented him with a fait accompli.
Why the Polkey reduction matters
Despite finding the dismissal unfair, the tribunal applied a 67% Polkey reduction. This means the systems manager's compensation will be reduced by that percentage because the tribunal concluded that even with proper consultation, he would likely have been dismissed anyway. His role was genuinely redundant, and there were no suitable alternative positions.
This case is a reminder that even when an employer gets the process wrong, compensation can be heavily reduced if the outcome would have been the same. It also shows that claims for enhanced redundancy payments require clear contractual evidence, which the systems manager could not provide.
Similar cases
Part-time worker dismissed for redundancy without consultation: unfair dismissal but no discrimination
A part-time Operations Assistant with Long Covid was unfairly dismissed when her employer decided to make her redundant before any consultation. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but applied a 60% Polkey reduction.
Spray polisher unfairly dismissed after hip replacements: employer refused phased return
A spray polisher with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused his proposed phased return following bilateral hip replacements. The tribunal awarded £4,250 but rejected disability discrimination claims.
Redundancy dismissal for research nurse: pool of one and Polkey reduction
A respiratory research nurse was unfairly dismissed when her fixed-term contract was not renewed due to financial deficits. The tribunal awarded £11,754 after finding a 50% chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Administrator made redundant by small charity: dismissal fair despite consultation shortcomings
An employment tribunal has ruled that a small charity's decision to make a long-serving administrator redundant was fair, even though the consultation process was flawed. No compensation was awarded.