Panel beater dismissed in redundancy: small employer's 'pool of one' upheld
A Watford tribunal has ruled that a panel beater with three years' service was fairly dismissed when his employer, a four-person car repair shop, made him redundant as the only employee at risk. The decision highlights how small employers can follow a lighter process.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a panel beater from 9 January 2020.
- The respondent had four employees and faced financial difficulties in late 2022.
- Mr Roger decided the claimant was the only realistic candidate for redundancy.
- On 21 January 2023, Mr Roger told the claimant he was at risk of redundancy and gave him a letter.
- The claimant did not engage in consultation or propose alternatives like part-time work.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant by letter dated 27 January 2023.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as a panel beater for the respondent.
-
Financial difficulties identified
In the last quarter of 2022, the respondent realised it faced financial difficulties and took advice.
-
First redundancy meeting
Mr Roger told the claimant he was at risk of redundancy and gave him a letter. The claimant was told not to work the following week to consider his response.
-
Claimant visited workplace
The claimant visited the site daily but did not work, only sorting tools and belongings.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Mr Roger wrote to the claimant confirming dismissal with notice, as the claimant had not engaged in consultation.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim for unfair dismissal to the tribunal.
-
Final hearing
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions from both parties.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge R Lewis found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, specifically whether the reason for dismissal was redundancy and whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances, given its small size and administrative resources.
The outcome
The tribunal decided the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The employer genuinely faced financial difficulties and needed to make a redundancy.
- The employer reasonably decided that only the claimant was at risk because the other employees (a paint technician, an apprentice, and the owner) were not interchangeable with the panel beater role.
- The employer gave the claimant a letter explaining the situation and a week off to consider his response, but the claimant did not engage in consultation or propose alternatives.
- Given the employer's small size (four employees), the process was proportionate and within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Small employers (with fewer than 5 employees) are not expected to follow the same detailed redundancy procedures as larger organisations, but they must still show they acted reasonably.
- A 'pool of one' for redundancy can be fair if the employer can justify why other employees are not at risk, for example due to different skills or business needs.
- Employees facing redundancy should engage with the consultation process and propose alternatives like part-time work, as failing to do so can weaken a later unfair dismissal claim.
- Length of service matters: with only three years' service, the claimant had less protection than a longer-serving employee might have had.
When a small business makes redundancies
This case shows how employment tribunals apply a lighter touch when assessing redundancy procedures at very small businesses. The respondent, LSJ The Car Body Repair Specialist Limited, had only four employees. When financial difficulties hit in late 2022, the owner took advice and decided a redundancy was necessary. He delayed action until after Christmas, which the tribunal noted as evidence of a thoughtful approach.
The owner concluded that only the panel beater was at risk. The paint technician was a specialist whose work the claimant could not do, the apprentice was part-time and not a cost-saving option, and the owner himself was a qualified panel beater who could cover that work when needed. The tribunal accepted this reasoning, finding that a 'pool of one' was appropriate in the circumstances.
What the employer did right
The employer gave the claimant a letter on 21 January 2023, explaining he was at risk of redundancy, and told him not to work the following week so he could consider his response. The claimant visited the workplace daily but did not engage in consultation or suggest alternatives such as part-time work. After a week, the employer wrote again confirming dismissal with notice. The tribunal noted that the employer had acted reasonably given its size and resources, and that the claimant's lack of engagement was a factor.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that redundancy procedures are not one-size-fits-all. Small employers can rely on a more informal process, provided they have a genuine business reason for redundancy, consider alternatives, and give the employee a meaningful opportunity to respond. For employees, the case is a reminder that failing to participate in consultation can undermine a later claim, even if the process was not as thorough as it might have been in a larger organisation.
Similar cases
Driver made redundant without warning or consultation: unfair dismissal
A lorry driver was dismissed with immediate effect when his employer decided to make him redundant, with no warning, consultation, or fair selection process. The tribunal awarded £6,278.38.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: how a small employer handled pandemic restructuring fairly
A Watford tribunal found that Flitetec Ltd fairly dismissed a senior sales account manager for redundancy after losing 70% of its revenue during the pandemic. The claim was dismissed.
Redundancy dismissal upheld for personal assistant at small care home
A personal assistant who argued her redundancy was a sham lost her unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found the role had genuinely diminished. No compensation was awarded.
Library assistant made redundant by email: no consultation, unfair dismissal
A library assistant with 14 years' service was dismissed by email without any warning or consultation. The tribunal awarded £1,301 after finding the dismissal unfair, but reduced compensation by 80% because she would likely have been dismissed anyway.