Redundancy selection pool of one: employer's decision upheld as fair
An external sales executive claimed unfair dismissal and sex discrimination after being selected for redundancy as a pool of one. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision, finding the pool selection was genuine and reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #pool-of-one
- #sex-discrimination
- #commercial-ups
- #technical-expertise
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an external sales executive from 1 August 2016 until 17 February 2020.
- The respondent faced financial difficulties and decided to cut costs and refocus on technical expertise.
- The claimant's role was selected for redundancy as part of a pool of one, based on her predominantly commercial UPS sales.
- The respondent's sales director, Mr Lewis, genuinely applied his mind to the pool selection, considering technical knowledge and role distinctiveness.
- The claimant declined to participate in a further selection process offered on appeal.
- The recruitment of a new sales manager after the claimant's dismissal was unrelated to her redundancy.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an account executive (internal).
-
Promotion to external sales executive
Claimant became an external sales executive, based at Hemel Hempstead, selling commercial UPS.
-
Sales team restructure
The sales team was restructured, dividing by client. Claimant reported to Head of Sales Andy Warner.
-
Redundancy process announced
Claimant received a letter placing her at risk of redundancy, with a first consultation meeting the same day.
-
Claimant queries selection
Claimant emailed Mr Lewis asking why her role was in a pool of one.
-
Second consultation meeting
Mr Lewis explained the redundancy criteria: keeping technical roles. Claimant raised concerns about pool of one.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy with one month's pay in lieu of notice.
-
Grievance sent
Claimant sent a grievance email, including complaint about unfair selection.
-
Appeal process initiated
Mr Marr treated the grievance as an appeal, decided to compare claimant with another employee (SMcK) with same job title.
-
New sales manager started
ScBi started as Commercial and Industrial Sales Manager, a role unrelated to claimant's redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to place the claimant in a redundancy pool of one was unreasonable, making the dismissal unfair, and whether her selection amounted to direct sex discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the employer's decision to select the claimant's role for redundancy was based on a genuine need to refocus on technical expertise, and the pool of one was reasonable given the distinct nature of her role. The sex discrimination claim also failed as there was no evidence that gender played any part in the decision.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can use a pool of one for redundancy if the role is genuinely distinct from others.
- A genuine business rationale for redundancy selection, such as refocusing on technical expertise, can justify a pool of one.
- Claimants should participate in alternative selection processes offered on appeal to avoid weakening their case.
- Sex discrimination claims require evidence that gender influenced the decision, not just a feeling of unfairness.
When a pool of one is fair
This case shows that redundancy selection pools don't always have to include multiple employees. The employer, Dale Power Solutions Ltd, was facing financial difficulties and decided to refocus its sales team on technical expertise. The claimant, an external sales executive selling commercial UPS, was the only person in her role with a predominantly commercial focus. The tribunal accepted that the sales director genuinely considered whether to include others but concluded her role was distinct.
What the employer did right
The employer held consultation meetings, explained the criteria, and offered an alternative selection process on appeal. The claimant declined to participate in that process, which weakened her position. The tribunal noted that the recruitment of a new sales manager after her dismissal was unrelated to her redundancy. The employer's decision was within the range of reasonable responses, and the sex discrimination claim failed because there was no evidence that gender played any role.
What this means for similar claims
Employees facing redundancy in a pool of one should check whether the employer has genuinely considered the pool composition. If an alternative selection process is offered, it's usually wise to take part. This case also highlights that a well-documented business rationale can protect an employer from an unfair dismissal claim, even when the pool is very narrow.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection predetermined: a manager's unfair dismissal win
A Business Intelligence Manager with six years' service has won his unfair dismissal claim after his employer decided his fate before consulting him. The tribunal awarded over £117,000 in compensation and a protective award for failing to collectively consult.
Managing Director made redundant in a pool of one: tribunal finds fair process
A tribunal has dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination by a Managing Director made redundant when her role was eliminated in a cost-saving restructure.
Redundancy selection predetermined: BT loses unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claim
A Radio and Rigging Manager with 25 years' service was unfairly dismissed after BT was found to have predetermined her redundancy selection and ignored her sex discrimination grievance. The tribunal awarded £137,929.
Judgments set aside after tribunal failed to phone absent respondent
A tribunal has set aside its own earlier judgments after admitting it should have telephoned the respondent before proceeding in their absence. The case will now be reheard.