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.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked part-time from home as an Operations Assistant.
- She had Long Covid causing fatigue and breathing difficulties, which the respondent knew about.
- The respondent decided to dismiss her for redundancy before any consultation.
- The dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair.
- The tribunal found a 60% chance she would have been dismissed even with a fair procedure.
- The claimant's disability discrimination and part-time worker detriment claims were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a part-time Operations Manager (later Operations Assistant) for Love My Human Ltd.
-
Claimant contracted COVID-19
Claimant was hospitalized and later diagnosed with Long Covid, causing fatigue and breathing difficulties.
-
Claimant informed respondent of Long Covid
Claimant told Jennifer Matthews she still had Long Covid and suffered from awful fatigue.
-
Claimant reported high heart rate and breathlessness
Claimant texted Matthews about experiencing a high heart rate and being out of breath.
-
Shareholders meeting
Shareholders discussed finances and identified the claimant's role as potentially redundant.
-
Claimant warned of dismissal by text
Matthews texted the claimant that her part-time role was likely to be lost due to cost-cutting.
-
Claimant suspended
Matthews emailed the claimant suspending her and removing her from company communications.
-
Redundancy consultation letter
Matthews wrote to the claimant stating her role was at risk of redundancy and inviting suggestions.
-
Dismissal letter
Matthews wrote confirming dismissal by reason of redundancy with effect from 2 September 2022.
-
Claim presented
Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and part-time worker detriment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy, whether the dismissal or process amounted to discrimination arising from disability, and whether she suffered a detriment as a part-time worker.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Love My Human Ltd unfairly dismissed the claimant by deciding to make her redundant before any consultation, which was procedurally and substantively unfair. However, the tribunal applied a 60% Polkey reduction, meaning the claimant would only receive 40% of any compensatory award.
The claimant's claims for disability discrimination and part-time worker detriment were dismissed. The tribunal found that the unfavourable treatment was not because of something arising from her disability, and she was not treated less favourably than a full-time comparator.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: to be determined at a remedy hearing
- Compensatory award: to be determined, then reduced by 60% Polkey
- No contributory fault reduction
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not decide on redundancy before consulting with the employee – consultation must be genuine and meaningful.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal finds a fair process would likely have led to the same outcome.
- Disability discrimination claims require a direct link between the unfavourable treatment and something arising from the disability – mere knowledge of a disability is not enough.
- Part-time worker detriment claims need a full-time comparator in similar circumstances – a general comparison is insufficient.
A redundancy decision made too quickly
This case shows what happens when an employer jumps the gun on redundancy. The claimant, a part-time Operations Assistant with four years' service, had been working from home due to Long Covid. In August 2022, her employer Love My Human Ltd decided to cut costs and identified her role as potentially redundant. But instead of starting a consultation process, the director texted the claimant to warn her that her role was likely to be lost, then suspended her and removed her from company communications. The formal consultation letter came only after the decision had effectively been made, and the dismissal followed within weeks.
The tribunal found this was unfair on both procedural and substantive grounds. A fair redundancy process requires genuine consultation before any final decision, giving the employee a chance to suggest alternatives. By making up its mind first, Love My Human Ltd denied the claimant that opportunity.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant also argued that the way she was treated amounted to discrimination arising from her disability (Long Covid). She said the disciplinary process, the offer of an alternative role she could not accept, and the dismissal were all because of her inability to attend the office. However, the tribunal found that the respondent's actions were driven by the financial need to cut costs, not by her disability. The offer of an alternative role was a genuine attempt to avoid redundancy, even if it was unsuitable. The tribunal also dismissed the part-time worker detriment claim because the claimant could not point to a full-time comparator who was treated more favourably in similar circumstances.
What this means for similar claims
For employees facing redundancy, this case is a reminder that a flawed process does not always lead to full compensation. The tribunal applied a 60% Polkey reduction, meaning it thought there was a 60% chance the claimant would have been dismissed anyway even with a fair process. That significantly reduces any award. For employers, the lesson is clear: never decide on redundancy before consulting. A proper process is not just a legal requirement – it can also help defend against discrimination claims by showing the decision was based on business needs, not personal characteristics.
Similar cases
Senior hairdresser with long COVID wins constructive dismissal case over part-time return refusal
A senior hairdresser with 12 years' service who resigned after her employer refused her GP-recommended phased return of two days a week has been awarded £13,699 for constructive unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Redundancy dismissal upheld despite disability: Institute of Physics wins tribunal case
A Digital Delivery Manager with multiple sclerosis was fairly dismissed for redundancy, the tribunal ruled, finding a genuine redundancy situation and fair process despite disability discrimination claims.
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.
Operations manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation
A Newcastle tribunal found that Angel of Corbridge Ltd unfairly dismissed an operations manager with 17 years' service by failing to disclose the selection matrix and not considering a suitable alternative role. She was awarded £12,799.