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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sex-discrimination
- #redundancy-selection
- #predetermined-outcome
- #failure-to-consult
- #failure-to-consider-alternative-employment
- #injury-to-feelings
Key facts
- The claimant was selected for redundancy from a pool of six radio and rigging managers.
- The tribunal found a predetermined decision to retain a male comparator, Mr MA, who was threatened with disciplinary action for refusing to attend an interview.
- The respondent failed to consider voluntary redundancy or job swap options despite policies and a collective agreement.
- The claimant was denied an appeal and her notice period was curtailed to prevent her from applying for a suitable alternative role (SatComs).
- The claimant's grievance alleging sex discrimination was ignored by senior management.
- The respondent failed to disclose relevant documents and provided no credible explanation for the treatment.
Timeline
-
Restructure announced
BT Technology announced 217 redundancies across the division, affecting the radio and rigging team.
-
Claimant entered individual consultation
Mr Wiles wrote to the claimant informing her she was at risk of redundancy and would undergo a selection process.
-
First consultation meeting
Mr Wiles explained the pool of six managers would be reduced to five, with selection based on an interview.
-
Claimant's interview
The claimant was interviewed but not permitted to use prepared slides; she was not told the scoring criteria in advance.
-
Mr MA refused interview
Male comparator Mr MA emailed Mr Wiles stating he would not attend the interview, aware of the consequences.
-
Mr MA threatened with discipline
Mr Wiles emailed Mr MA instructing him to attend a rescheduled interview or face disciplinary action.
-
Claimant informed of provisional redundancy
The claimant was told she was selected for redundancy; her scores were not provided and the meeting lasted 20 minutes.
-
Claimant raised SatComs role
The claimant emailed Mr Wiles suggesting she could take the SatComs role at Goonhilly, but Mr Wiles did not respond.
-
Claimant accepted enhanced redundancy
The claimant accepted the enhanced voluntary redundancy package under pressure of a deadline.
-
Claimant raised sex discrimination
The claimant emailed Mr Wiles and senior directors alleging sex discrimination; the email was ignored.
-
Claimant dismissed
The claimant's employment ended; her notice period was curtailed, preventing her from applying for the SatComs role.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether she was subjected to direct sex discrimination in her selection for redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and subjected to direct sex discrimination.
Key reasons:
- BT had a predetermined decision to retain a male comparator who refused to attend an interview, while the claimant was scored poorly.
- BT failed to consider voluntary redundancy or job swap options, and curtailed her notice to prevent her applying for a suitable alternative role.
- The claimant's grievance alleging sex discrimination was ignored by senior management.
- BT failed to disclose relevant documents and provided no credible explanation.
Compensation:
- Total: £137,929.25
- Compensatory award: £48,421.39
- (Basic award and other heads not specified in the facts)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not predetermine redundancy outcomes – a fair process requires genuine consultation and objective selection criteria.
- Ignoring a grievance that raises discrimination is a serious failing and can lead to a finding of discrimination.
- Curtailing an employee's notice period to prevent them applying for a suitable alternative role is likely to be seen as unfair.
- Failure to disclose relevant documents in tribunal proceedings can damage credibility and lead to adverse inferences.
A predetermined outcome from the start
This case shows how a redundancy process can go badly wrong when the employer has already decided who will stay. The claimant, a Radio and Rigging Manager with 25 years' service, was selected for redundancy from a pool of six managers. But the tribunal found that BT had predetermined that a male comparator would be retained, even though he had refused to attend the selection interview and was threatened with disciplinary action. The claimant was not told the scoring criteria in advance, was prevented from using her prepared slides, and was given no scores after her interview.
What BT could have done differently
BT could have avoided this outcome by conducting a genuine consultation. The tribunal noted that BT failed to consider voluntary redundancy or job swaps, despite having policies and a collective agreement that allowed for them. When the claimant suggested she could take a suitable alternative role (the SatComs role at Goonhilly), her manager did not respond. Worse, BT curtailed her notice period to prevent her from applying for that role. The claimant's grievance alleging sex discrimination was also ignored by senior management – a failure that contributed to the finding of direct discrimination.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that a redundancy process must be fair in both form and substance. Employees with long service are entitled to expect a meaningful consultation and proper consideration of alternatives. The tribunal was also critical of BT's disclosure failures, which undermined its credibility. For anyone considering a similar claim, the key points are: keep records of all communications, raise concerns in writing, and seek advice early – especially if you suspect discrimination.
Similar cases
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
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.
Zero-hour contract workers awarded £10,728 for racist and sexist abuse by colleagues
Two zero-hour contract workers won race and sex discrimination claims after a manager made racist comments and a colleague subjected a female worker to sexist verbal abuse. The tribunal awarded a total of £10,728 for injury to feelings.
CHRO unfairly dismissed after sex-biased appraisal and reorganisation
A Chief Human Resources Officer was unfairly dismissed by Co-operative Group Limited after a sex-biased performance appraisal and a flawed reorganisation. The tribunal awarded £101,373 in compensation.