Procedurally unfair redundancy but no compensation: employee who rejected alternative role
A Principal Technical Author with 14 years' service won his unfair dismissal claim over a flawed redundancy process, but received no compensation because the tribunal found he would not have accepted any alternative role.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #procedural-unfairness
- #polkey-deduction
- #enhanced-redundancy-payment
- #alternative-employment
Key facts
- Mr Benstead was employed as a Principal Technical Author from 30 January 2006 until 6 November 2020.
- He was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
- The tribunal concluded that had a fair process been followed, Mr Benstead would not have accepted any alternative role due to his disagreement with the business strategy.
- The compensatory award was reduced by 100% under Polkey principles.
- Mr Benstead received an enhanced redundancy payment of £38,652 which offset the basic award.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Benstead began working for Certsure LLP as a Principal Technical Author.
-
Dismissal
Mr Benstead was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
ACAS certificate
Mr Benstead obtained an ACAS early conciliation certificate.
-
Claim presented
Mr Benstead filed a claim for unfair dismissal.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair but that Mr Benstead would not have accepted alternative employment.
-
Respondent requested paper remedy
The respondent asked for remedy to be determined on the papers.
-
Schedules of loss received
The tribunal received the schedules of loss from both parties.
-
Remedy judgment
The tribunal issued a remedy judgment awarding no monetary compensation.
The legal issue
Whether the dismissal by reason of redundancy was procedurally unfair, and what remedy should be awarded given the tribunal's finding that the employee would not have accepted alternative employment even if a fair process had been followed.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the earlier liability finding that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer failed to consider the appropriate selection pool and did not adequately explore alternative employment.
However, the tribunal also found that even if a fair process had been followed, the employee would not have accepted any alternative role because he fundamentally disagreed with the company's business strategy. As a result, the compensatory award was reduced by 100% under the Polkey principle.
The basic award of £12,105 was fully offset by the enhanced redundancy payment of £38,652 the employee had already received. No monetary award was made.
- Basic award: £12,105 (offset by enhanced redundancy payment)
- Compensatory award: £0 (100% Polkey reduction)
- Total compensation: £0
Lessons & takeaways
- A procedurally unfair redundancy can still result in no compensation if the tribunal decides the employee would have been dismissed anyway under a fair process.
- Enhanced redundancy payments can offset statutory awards, so check whether your employer's scheme covers the basic award.
- Expressing strong disagreement with business strategy during the process may be used against you in a Polkey reduction if it shows you would not have accepted alternative roles.
- Length of service (14 years here) does not guarantee compensation if the tribunal finds the outcome would have been the same with a fair process.
When winning a case doesn't mean getting compensation
This case illustrates a difficult reality for employees bringing unfair dismissal claims: even when the tribunal agrees the process was flawed, compensation can be reduced to zero if the employer can show the same outcome would have occurred anyway.
The Principal Technical Author had worked for Certsure LLP for 14 years when his role was made redundant. The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the company failed to properly consider the selection pool and did not adequately explore alternative jobs. On the face of it, this looked like a clear win for the employee.
The Polkey reduction that wiped out compensation
However, the tribunal also found that even if a fair process had been followed, the employee would not have accepted any alternative role. He had made clear during the process and at the hearing that he fundamentally disagreed with the company's business strategy and could not continue working there. This led to a 100% reduction in the compensatory award under the Polkey principle, which allows tribunals to reduce compensation when a fair procedure would not have changed the outcome.
The employee had also received an enhanced redundancy payment of £38,652, which exceeded the basic award of £12,105. This meant the basic award was fully offset, leaving no monetary award at all.
What this means for similar claims
For employees considering a redundancy unfair dismissal claim, this case is a reminder that procedural unfairness alone does not guarantee compensation. Tribunals will look at what would have happened if the process had been fair, and if they conclude the employee would have been dismissed anyway, the compensatory award can be reduced or eliminated.
It also highlights the importance of how employees express themselves during redundancy consultations. While it is natural to disagree with business decisions, stating unequivocally that you would not accept any alternative role can be used to argue that a fair process would have made no difference. Employees should consider carefully how they communicate their position, and seek advice before making statements that could later be interpreted as a refusal to consider alternatives.
Similar cases
Café manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy and missed vacancy
A café manager with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to inform her of a sales assistant vacancy during redundancy consultation. The tribunal awarded £560.28 after applying a 66.7% Polkey reduction.
Solicitor made redundant without proper consideration of alternative role at sister firm
A housing solicitor was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to properly consider a possible secondment at a sister firm. The tribunal found a 85% chance that consultation would have led to an alternative role.
Senior VP dismissed by email after missing final redundancy meeting due to mother's appointment
A senior vice-president was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused to reschedule a final redundancy consultation meeting, instead sending a dismissal email when he couldn't attend due to his mother's medical appointment. The tribunal awarded £658.71 in compensation.
18-year employee unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A Quality Lead with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Mitie Group Plc used flawed selection criteria and a perfunctory consultation process in a redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £46,933.64.