Pandemic redundancies at Car Giant: tribunal upholds fair process
Three window fitters lost their jobs during the pandemic but failed to prove unfair dismissal or race discrimination. The tribunal found Car Giant's redundancy process was fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #selection-matrix
- #collective-consultation
- #race-discrimination
- #pandemic
Key facts
- All three claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The respondent conducted collective consultation with elected employee representatives over four meetings in June and July 2020.
- Each claimant was provisionally selected for redundancy based on a scoring matrix and given individual consultation meetings.
- The claimants alleged unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, and harassment related to race.
- The tribunal found that the respondent followed a fair process and that the dismissals were not related to race.
Timeline
-
Start of pandemic lockdown
Car Giant ceased retail operations and placed almost all staff on furlough.
-
Warning of potential redundancies
The respondent wrote to employees informing them of possible redundancies and the need for collective consultation.
-
Meeting to decide return from furlough
Senior managers met to decide which employees would be brought back from furlough; no redundancy decisions were made at this meeting.
-
First collective consultation meeting
Employee representatives were told of the proposal to reduce workforce by around 20% and were given information about the selection matrix.
-
Second collective consultation meeting
The selection matrix was provided to representatives; they were given a week to gather feedback.
-
Third collective consultation meeting
Further updates on resignations and trading figures; scoring was about to start.
-
Final collective consultation meeting
Scoring was completed; provisional selections were to be notified later that week.
-
Provisional selection letters sent
Each claimant received a letter informing them they were provisionally selected for redundancy and inviting them to individual consultation.
-
First individual consultation meeting (Mr Williams)
Mr Williams met with Mark Cullen; he challenged his matrix scores and mentioned discrimination.
-
First individual consultation meetings (Mr Buckley and Mr Warsama)
Both claimants attended their first individual consultation meetings; they were given their scores and discussed alternatives.
-
Final consultation meeting (Mr Buckley)
Mr Buckley was informed of his dismissal by telephone; he was given 12 weeks' notice.
-
Appeal meeting (Mr Warsama)
Mr Warsama's appeal was heard by the second respondent and rejected.
-
Appeal meetings (Mr Buckley and Mr Williams)
Both claimants had their appeals heard by the second respondent; both appeals were later rejected.
-
Appeal outcome letter (Mr Buckley)
Mr Buckley received written confirmation that his appeal was rejected.
-
Appeal outcome letter (Mr Williams)
Mr Williams received written confirmation that his appeal was rejected.
-
Appeal outcome letter (Mr Warsama)
Mr Warsama received written confirmation that his appeal was rejected.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants were unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether the respondent directly discriminated against them or harassed them because of their race.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, and harassment related to race.
The key reasons were:
- Car Giant carried out proper collective consultation with elected employee representatives over four meetings.
- A selection matrix was used and individual consultation meetings were held.
- The tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the selection decisions.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers facing redundancy should carry out collective consultation if 20 or more employees are at risk, even during a pandemic.
- Using a clear selection matrix and giving employees a chance to challenge scores can help demonstrate a fair process.
- Allegations of discrimination need concrete evidence; a tribunal will look at the actual reasons behind decisions.
- Individual consultation meetings are essential even after collective consultation has taken place.
A redundancy process under pressure
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, Car Giant Ltd had to shut its retail operations and furlough almost all staff. By May, it was clear that redundancies were unavoidable. The company wrote to employees warning of possible job losses and began a collective consultation process with elected employee representatives.
Over four meetings in June and July 2020, the representatives were given information about the proposed redundancies, the selection matrix, and the scoring process. The tribunal noted that the consultation was meaningful and that the representatives had a genuine opportunity to influence decisions.
What the claimants argued
Three window fitters, each with long service, were provisionally selected for redundancy based on their scores. They challenged the process, arguing that the selection was unfair and that their race (all were black or from ethnic minorities) influenced the decision. They also alleged harassment related to race.
However, the tribunal found no evidence to support these claims. The matrix scores were based on objective criteria such as skills, experience, and performance. Individual consultation meetings gave each claimant the chance to challenge their scores and suggest alternatives. Appeals were heard by a senior manager and rejected.
What could have been done differently?
From the employer's perspective, Car Giant followed best practice: it consulted collectively, used a transparent scoring system, and gave each employee a voice. The tribunal praised the process as fair and reasonable. For employees, the case shows that a well-documented redundancy process can withstand scrutiny, even when it leads to job losses.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes can be fair even under extreme pressure. The pandemic did not excuse employers from their obligations, but Car Giant met them. For employees considering a claim, it highlights the importance of gathering evidence of unfairness or discrimination early on. Without it, even a genuine belief that something was wrong may not be enough to win.
Similar cases
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Clinical Support Worker awarded statutory redundancy payment after 19 years' service
A tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £2,077.16 to a Clinical Support Worker with 19 years' service, finding that his refusal of an alternative role was not unreasonable.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.