Sales Executive made redundant after scoring was completed post-decision: unfair dismissal
A sales executive with 5 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer decided to make him redundant before applying any selection criteria. The tribunal awarded £8,079.20, reduced by 20% for the chance he might have been dismissed fairly.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #predetermined-selection
- #lack-of-consultation
- #polkey-deduction
- #flawed-scoring
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Sales Executive for 5 years.
- The respondent decided to restructure and combine two teams, leading to redundancies.
- The claimant was the only person in his pool invited to an 'at risk' meeting and placed on garden leave before any scoring.
- The scoring matrix was completed after the decision to select the claimant was made.
- The claimant was not consulted about the selection criteria or given his scores.
- The appeal was dismissed without a hearing or proper investigation.
Timeline
-
Annual Operations Meeting
Ms Maynard discussed a proposal to combine the Taxi and Motor teams, likely leading to redundancies.
-
Meeting about COVID-19 impact
Ms Maynard and Mr Dodds met to discuss issues due to the pandemic, leading to an expedited restructure.
-
At risk meeting
The claimant was told his role was at risk of redundancy and was placed on garden leave. No scoring had been done yet.
-
Scoring matrix completed
Ms Maynard completed the scoring matrix, giving the claimant a total score of 7, the lowest in the pool.
-
Dismissal meeting
The claimant was told he was being made redundant. No consultation or discussion of scores occurred.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed, requesting a copy of the selection criteria matrix.
-
Appeal rejected
Mr Cross rejected the appeal without a hearing, stating the process was fair.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended, though he remained on garden leave until this date.
-
New employment found
The claimant started a new job, ending his period of unemployment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted fairly under s98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when dismissing the claimant for redundancy, specifically regarding warning, consultation, selection criteria, and consideration of alternative employment.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer had already decided to select him for redundancy before any scoring was done, and he was placed on garden leave without consultation. The scoring matrix was completed after the decision, and the appeal was rejected without a hearing.
The compensation was calculated as follows:
- Past loss of earnings (to 26 October 2020): £9,099
- Polkey deduction (20%): -£1,819.80
- Loss of statutory rights: £500
- Expenses looking for work: £500
- Polkey deduction on non-prescribed loss (20%): -£200
- Total compensatory award: £8,079.20
- Basic award: £0 (not applicable as claimant was over 41 with 5 years' service, but basic award was not claimed or was offset by redundancy payment? Actually basic award was £0 per judgment).
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are selected for redundancy before any objective scoring is done, that is a strong indicator of unfairness.
- Employers must consult with employees about selection criteria and give them a chance to comment before making a final decision.
- A flawed appeal process, such as rejecting an appeal without a hearing, can further undermine the fairness of a redundancy dismissal.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, the tribunal may reduce compensation if it finds there was a chance the employee would have been dismissed fairly anyway (Polkey deduction).
This case shows what can happen when an employer rushes a redundancy process without proper consultation. The sales executive was told his role was at risk and placed on garden leave before any selection criteria had been drawn up. The scoring matrix was completed the next day, but by then the decision had already been made. He was not given his scores or a chance to challenge them, and his appeal was dismissed without a hearing.
What the employer did wrong
The employer could have avoided this outcome by following a fair process. They should have warned the claimant of the potential redundancy, consulted him about the selection criteria, and applied those criteria objectively before making a decision. Instead, they predetermined the outcome and treated the consultation as a formality. The tribunal noted that the claimant was the only person in his pool invited to an 'at risk' meeting, which suggested the decision was already made.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even in a genuine redundancy situation, the process matters. Employers must not only have a fair reason for dismissal but also act reasonably in how they carry it out. The 20% Polkey deduction reflects that the claimant might still have been dismissed if a fair process had been followed, but the core unfairness was clear. For employees, it shows the importance of challenging a process that feels predetermined, and for employers, it highlights the risks of cutting corners in a redundancy exercise.
Similar cases
Dispatch supervisor made redundant without any consultation: unfair dismissal award
A dispatch supervisor with four years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without a proper selection pool, objective criteria, or any meaningful consultation. The tribunal awarded £661.95 in compensation.
Part-time fitness instructor unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A tribunal found that Greenwich Leisure Ltd unfairly dismissed an 8-year employee during pandemic redundancies, due to flawed selection criteria and a lack of consultation.
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
Cleaner unfairly dismissed after employer went into liquidation
A cleaner was unfairly dismissed when her employer went into liquidation without following any redundancy procedure. The tribunal awarded £14,522 in compensation, reduced by 50% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.