Grab driver loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy selection pool
A grab driver with seven years' service was fairly dismissed when his employer selected him for redundancy based on his temporary workstream, even though he argued he should have been pooled with other drivers at his contractual base.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #selection-pool
- #workstream-alignment
- #temporary-deployment
- #tufe-transfer
- #derogatory-comments
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a grab driver from 2014 until dismissal on 22 January 2021.
- The claimant's contractual base was the Fazakerley site, but he was deployed to the Severn Trent 620 workstream from January 2020.
- The Severn Trent contract terminated abruptly in summer 2020, leading to a redundancy process.
- The respondent selected the claimant for redundancy based on alignment to the 620 workstream, without pooling him with other Fazakerley-based drivers.
- The claimant argued he should have been pooled with other Fazakerley-based employees and that his deployment was a ruse to exclude him from a TUPE transfer.
- The tribunal found the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment began
The claimant started employment with Amey, later transferring to the respondent.
-
TUPE transfer to respondent
The claimant's employment transferred from Amey to Network Plus Service Limited when the respondent took over the United Utilities contract.
-
Holiday and return
The claimant went on holiday; upon return, his usual grab wagon had been moved to Salford.
-
Deployment to Severn Trent 620
The claimant agreed to work temporarily on the Severn Trent 620 workstream as a driver.
-
Derogatory email
Operations Manager Liam Hall described the claimant as a 'spare man' in an internal email.
-
Furlough leave
The claimant was placed on furlough due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Severn Trent contract terminated
The Severn Trent 620 contract ended abruptly, eliminating the workstream.
-
Redundancy decision
Mr McLaughlin decided to put the claimant at risk of redundancy, selecting him as the only employee in the 620 workstream.
-
At risk notification
The claimant was informed he was at risk of redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
The claimant argued he should be pooled with other Fazakerley-based employees.
-
Second consultation meeting
Mr McLaughlin upheld the decision to select the claimant based on workstream alignment.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent proved that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, and whether it acted reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason, particularly regarding the selection pool and the claimant's temporary deployment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant's role was redundant when the Severn Trent 620 contract ended, and that the decision to select him as the only employee in that workstream was reasonable. The claimant's argument that he should have been pooled with other Fazakerley-based drivers was rejected because his temporary deployment to the 620 workstream was not a ruse but a genuine operational need. The derogatory 'spare man' email did not taint the process, as it was not part of the redundancy decision. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can define a redundancy selection pool by reference to a specific workstream or project, even if employees have a different contractual base, provided the pool is genuinely aligned with the work that has diminished.
- Temporary redeployment to a different workstream does not automatically entitle an employee to be pooled with employees at their original base when that workstream ends.
- Derogatory comments made by managers, while unprofessional, will not necessarily render a subsequent redundancy process unfair if they are not connected to the selection decision.
- Employees who believe they have been unfairly excluded from a TUPE transfer should raise that concern separately, as it does not automatically make a redundancy dismissal unfair.
- A redundancy process can be fair even if it is conducted quickly, as long as there is genuine consultation and the employer considers the employee's representations.
When a temporary deployment defines your redundancy pool
This case shows how a temporary change in duties can have lasting consequences. The claimant, a grab driver with seven years' service, was based at the Fazakerley site but agreed to work temporarily on a Severn Trent contract in early 2020. When that contract ended abruptly in summer 2020, the respondent treated him as the sole employee in that workstream and selected him for redundancy. The tribunal accepted that this was a genuine redundancy situation, not a ruse to avoid a TUPE transfer or to target the claimant unfairly.
What the employer did right
The respondent had a clear rationale: the work the claimant was actually doing had dried up. It consulted with him twice, considered his objection that he should be pooled with other Fazakerley drivers, and explained why that was not appropriate given his deployment. The tribunal noted that the claimant's contractual base remained Fazakerley, but his actual duties had been on the 620 workstream for months. The employer's decision to pool by workstream rather than by contractual base was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy selection pools do not have to be drawn by contractual location alone. Employers can use operational alignment, especially where employees have been working on a specific project for a sustained period. However, the outcome might have been different if the claimant had been deployed for only a few days, or if the employer had not consulted properly. The derogatory 'spare man' email from an operations manager was criticised by the tribunal but did not make the dismissal unfair, as it was not part of the redundancy decision. For employees, this highlights the importance of understanding that temporary assignments can become the basis for redundancy selection, and that raising concerns early in the process is crucial.
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.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.
Interim relief refused: redundancy decision made before protected disclosures
A senior contracts attorney lost her bid for interim relief after the tribunal found her redundancy was decided before she made protected disclosures about sanctions risks. The claim was dismissed.