Regional Sales Manager unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring was pre-determined
A tribunal found that Syspal Ltd unfairly dismissed a Regional Sales Manager with 2 years 7 months' service because the redundancy selection process was pre-determined and the scoring matrix flawed. He was awarded £32,735 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #pre-determined-outcome
- #flawed-scoring-matrix
- #polkey-deduction
- #age-discrimination-dismissed
- #whistleblowing-dismissed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Regional Sales Manager from 15 November 2018 until dismissal on 17 June 2021.
- The respondent made 22 employees redundant in 2020 and continued to review efficiency in 2021.
- The claimant was provisionally selected for redundancy on 7 June 2021 after scoring lowest in a selection matrix.
- The redundancy process lasted 10 days, during which the claimant's IT access was blocked.
- The tribunal found the selection for redundancy was pre-determined and the scoring process was unfair.
- The claimant's appeal resulted in increased scores but did not change the outcome.
Timeline
-
Appraisal meeting
Paul Roberjot told the claimant he was considering reducing the sales team.
-
Scoring completed
Most scores for the redundancy matrix were completed by this date.
-
Provisional selection
The claimant was notified by phone that he was provisionally selected for redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
The claimant challenged his scores on sales performance, technical knowledge, and skills.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant raised concerns about timescales and lack of information.
-
Dismissal
The claimant's employment was terminated with immediate effect.
-
Appeal hearing
Chris Truman heard the claimant's appeal and increased some scores but upheld dismissal.
-
Appeal outcome
The claimant was informed that the dismissal was confirmed.
-
New employment
The claimant started work at Podmores with a higher basic salary.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for redundancy was fair, focusing on whether the selection process and consultation were reasonable. It also considered claims of age discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, and breach of contract, all of which were dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The key reason was that the selection for redundancy was pre-determined and the scoring process was unfair. The claimant's IT access was blocked during the 10-day process, and the appeal did not change the outcome.
Compensation breakdown:
- Compensatory award: £32,735
- Polkey reduction: 33% (reflecting the chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process)
- Basic award: £0 (not awarded as the claimant was not entitled due to the nature of the claim)
- Contributory fault: none
Lessons & takeaways
- A redundancy selection process must be genuinely fair and transparent, not pre-determined, to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal.
- Blocking an employee's IT access during a redundancy process can undermine the fairness of consultation.
- Even if a claimant would likely have been dismissed anyway, a Polkey reduction may apply, but the employer still faces a compensatory award.
- Length of service matters: employees with over 2 years' service have enhanced unfair dismissal rights, but the process must still be reasonable.
When redundancy selection is a foregone conclusion
This case shows what can happen when a redundancy process is rushed and the outcome appears to have been decided before proper consultation. The Regional Sales Manager, with just over 2.5 years' service, was provisionally selected for redundancy after scoring lowest in a matrix. The entire process lasted only 10 days, during which his IT access was blocked—making it nearly impossible to challenge the scores or prepare for meetings.
What went wrong for the employer
Syspal Ltd had already made 22 employees redundant the previous year and was reviewing efficiency again. But the tribunal found that the scoring matrix was flawed and that the selection was pre-determined. The claimant raised concerns about his scores on sales performance and technical knowledge, but the appeal—while increasing some scores—still upheld the dismissal. The tribunal noted that a fair process would have given the claimant a real chance to argue his case, but even then there was a 33% chance he would have been dismissed anyway. That's why the compensatory award was reduced.
Why this matters for similar claims
For anyone facing redundancy, this case is a reminder that employers must follow a fair procedure, especially when using a scoring matrix. If the process feels rushed or the outcome seems fixed, that could be grounds for an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant's other claims—age discrimination, whistleblowing, and breach of contract—were all dismissed, showing that not every unfair dismissal involves discrimination. The award of £32,735 reflects the financial impact of losing a job through a flawed process, even when the employer had a genuine redundancy situation.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection with predetermined outcome: unfair dismissal for senior adviser with 20 years' service
A senior financial adviser with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a redundancy process where the outcome was predetermined. The tribunal awarded £24,229.53, reduced by 80% due to the chance he would have been dismissed anyway.
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.
Building supervisor with 15 years' service unfairly dismissed in flawed redundancy process
A building supervisor was unfairly dismissed after a redundancy selection process that made a final decision before meaningful consultation. The tribunal awarded £4,130.86, reduced by 85% for the chance he would have been dismissed anyway.
Age discrimination in redundancy selection: 21-year manager wins unfair dismissal claim
A Business Administration Manager with 21 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy selection process that the tribunal found was tainted by age discrimination. The case highlights the risks of competency-based scoring lacking transparency.