36.5-year employee unfairly dismissed after managers assessed their own pool
A sales advisor with 36.5 years' service was procedurally unfairly dismissed when managers assessing redundancy scores were themselves in the same pool. The tribunal found a 100% chance she would have been dismissed anyway, so no compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #redundancy-selection
- #manager-in-pool
- #procedural-unfairness
- #polkey-100-percent
- #part-time-worker
Key facts
- The claimant was employed for 36.5 years as a sales advisor.
- The respondent conducted a redundancy selection exercise to make six redundancies from a pool of 19 employees.
- The claimant scored 51 points, second lowest in the pool.
- The three managers assessing staff were included in the same redundancy pool as those they assessed.
- The tribunal found this created a conflict of interest and made the dismissal procedurally unfair.
- The tribunal found a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway, so no compensatory award was made.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for IBM (UK) Ltd.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claims for part-time worker detriment and unfair dismissal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge O'Rourke adopted a list of issues.
-
Liability hearing day 1
Tribunal heard evidence and submissions on liability.
-
Liability hearing day 3
Tribunal concluded liability hearing.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found dismissal procedurally unfair but dismissed part-time worker claim.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal heard submissions on Polkey reduction and remedy.
-
Remedy judgment
Tribunal applied 100% Polkey reduction, no compensatory or basic award.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether including managers in the same redundancy pool as the staff they assessed made the selection process unfair, and whether the claimant's part-time status led to less favourable treatment in the redundancy scoring.
The outcome
The tribunal decided the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to a conflict of interest in the redundancy selection process. The three managers assessing staff were part of the same pool, which compromised objectivity. However, the tribunal found that even with a fair process, the claimant would have been dismissed with 100% certainty (Polkey reduction), so no compensatory award was made. The part-time worker claim was dismissed as the scoring was not influenced by her part-time status.
- No compensation awarded due to 100% Polkey reduction.
- The part-time worker claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure that managers assessing redundancy scores are not themselves in the same selection pool as those they assess, to avoid conflicts of interest.
- Long service does not guarantee a fair outcome if the procedural flaw is not causative of the dismissal.
- Part-time workers should gather evidence if they believe their hours influenced redundancy decisions, as tribunals will scrutinise the scoring criteria.
- A Polkey reduction can eliminate compensation even if the dismissal is unfair, so claimants should focus on proving causation.
A conflict of interest in redundancy selection
This case highlights a common but often overlooked flaw in redundancy processes: when managers tasked with assessing staff are themselves at risk of redundancy in the same pool. The sales advisor, with over 36 years of service, was scored by managers who were also competing for the same limited number of roles. The tribunal found this created an inherent conflict of interest, making the dismissal procedurally unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
IBM could have avoided this outcome by separating the assessment panel from the redundancy pool. For example, using external managers or HR professionals who were not at risk would have preserved objectivity. The tribunal noted that the scoring system itself was not flawed, but the conflict undermined the process. A simple structural change could have saved the employer from a finding of unfairness.
Why the result matters
Despite the finding of unfairness, the claimant received no compensation because the tribunal was satisfied that she would have been dismissed anyway. This demonstrates that procedural errors do not always lead to a payout if the outcome would have been the same. For employees, this means that winning on unfairness is not enough—they must also show that the flaw made a difference to their dismissal. For employers, the case is a reminder that even a 'fair' outcome can be tainted by a flawed process, leading to reputational damage and legal costs even without a compensation award.
Similar cases
Trade promoter with 20 years' service unfairly dismissed but denied compensation over secret commission
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but refused to award any compensation because after-dismissed evidence showed the employee had sought a secret commission from a customer.
Ramp allocator with 23 years' service unfairly dismissed over subjective redundancy interview
A ramp allocator with 23 years' service was unfairly dismissed after Menzies Aviation used subjective interview-based selection criteria for redundancy. The tribunal awarded £31,373.68 in compensation.
Architectural assistant dismissed without consultation: procedural unfairness but no compensation
An architectural assistant with six years' service was made redundant without any prior consultation. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but awarded no compensation because redundancy was inevitable.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.