Director of Strategy made redundant: pool-of-one dismissal held fair
A director of strategy who was the only person in her redundancy pool lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably in a genuine redundancy situation.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #pool-of-one
- #consultation-timing
- #role-dissimilarity
- #bump-not-required
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Director of Strategy from 10 February 2020 to 10 February 2023.
- The respondent's business faced a financial crisis with 22% revenue growth against a 72% target, leading to a forced change of direction.
- The claimant's role was eliminated as part of cost-cutting measures; she was placed in a pool of one.
- The respondent consulted with the claimant over three meetings in February 2023 before dismissal.
- No suitable alternative role was found for the claimant.
- The claimant argued she should have been pooled with Anna Porra, but the tribunal found the roles were markedly different.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Director of Strategy.
-
Anna Porra recruited
Anna Porra was recruited as Head of Sales Planning and Operations, starting in November 2022.
-
Meeting with CEO
Mr Gualandri informed claimant the current structure was not working and he would move her role into a business unit.
-
Head of Professional Services advertised
Role advertised; claimant later suggested she should have been considered but did not pursue.
-
Financial crisis emerges
Poor revenue performance led to investor pressure for cost-cutting and change of direction.
-
Decision to eliminate role
Mr Gualandri decided the claimant's role would be eliminated due to change of direction.
-
First consultation meeting
Consultation started; deletion of role presented as fait accompli.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant raised concerns about selection criteria and pool.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed with pay in lieu of notice and statutory redundancy payment.
-
Judgment
Employment Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for redundancy was fair, focusing on whether the employer acted reasonably in selecting a pool of one and in the timing and scope of the consultation process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
- The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to a financial crisis that forced a change of business direction, eliminating the claimant's role.
- The decision to place the claimant in a pool of one was reasonable because the only potential comparator, Anna Porra, had a markedly different role focused on operational tasks within a single unit, whereas the claimant's role was strategic and company-wide.
- The consultation, though short, involved three meetings where the claimant could raise concerns, and the respondent considered alternatives but found none suitable.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your role is unique and the business changes direction, a 'pool of one' may be reasonable — but the employer must still consult genuinely.
- A short consultation period can be fair if the redundancy situation is urgent and the employer engages in meaningful discussions.
- Challenging the pool selection is difficult if the proposed comparator's role is significantly different in scope and responsibility.
- Employers should document the reasons for pool selection and consultation steps to show they acted reasonably.
When a 'pool of one' is fair
This case shows that a redundancy process can be fair even when the affected employee is the only person in the pool, provided the employer has genuinely considered whether others do similar work. The claimant, a Director of Strategy with three years' service, argued she should have been pooled with a colleague who had 'growth planning' responsibilities. But the tribunal found that colleague's role was operational and unit-specific, while the claimant's was strategic and company-wide. The difference was clear enough to justify a pool of one.
What the employer did right
Soldo Software Ltd faced a genuine financial crisis — 22% revenue growth against a 72% target — which forced a change of direction. The claimant's role was eliminated as part of cost-cutting. The employer consulted with the claimant over three meetings in February 2023, even though the decision to delete the role had already been made. The tribunal accepted that the consultation was genuine because the employer considered alternatives, such as moving the claimant to another unit, but found none suitable. The employer also made a statutory redundancy payment.
What the claimant argued
The claimant raised several points: the pool should have included another employee; the consultation was too short and presented as a fait accompli; and she should have been considered for a Head of Professional Services role. The tribunal rejected each argument. The comparator's role was not sufficiently similar, the consultation was adequate given the urgency, and the other role required technical skills the claimant did not have.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals give employers a 'range of reasonable responses' in redundancy situations. A pool of one is not automatically unfair, especially when the role is unique. However, employers must still consult meaningfully and consider alternatives. For employees, challenging a redundancy selection is difficult if the employer can show a genuine business reason and a fair process, even if the outcome is disappointing.
Similar cases
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
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.
Redundancy dismissal for research nurse: pool of one and Polkey reduction
A respiratory research nurse was unfairly dismissed when her fixed-term contract was not renewed due to financial deficits. The tribunal awarded £11,754 after finding a 50% chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Managing Director's redundancy and disability claims dismissed by tribunal
A tribunal has dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination brought by a managing director with 8 years' service who was made redundant during the COVID-19 pandemic. No compensation was awarded.