28-year employee made redundant after COVID-19: fair dismissal despite long service
An expert consultant with 28 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after her one-day-a-week role was eliminated due to COVID-19. The tribunal rejected claims of age and sex discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #covid-19
- #part-time-worker
- #childcare-responsibilities
- #selection-criteria
- #consultation-process
Key facts
- The claimant worked one day per week (Sunday) for 8 hours due to childcare.
- The respondent reduced full-time equivalent headcount by 30% due to COVID-19 impact.
- The claimant scored highest in the selection matrix but no suitable role existed for her.
- The respondent offered reduced hours on a Sunday but the claimant did not accept.
- The claimant's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy on 13 October 2020.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent.
-
Became La Mer expert consultant
Claimant worked as an expert consultant for La Mer brand at Harrods.
-
Reduced to one day per week
Claimant worked Sundays only due to childcare.
-
Furlough due to COVID-19
Claimant placed on furlough after 'stay at home' order.
-
At Risk briefing
Claimant informed she was provisionally selected for redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant questioned why no 8-hour Sunday role existed.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant stated no alternative due to childcare.
-
Third consultation meeting
Claimant scored highest but no suitable role available.
-
Offer of reduced hours
Respondent offered reduced hours on Sunday; claimant declined.
-
Final consultation meeting
Claimant confirmed no suitable alternative; dismissal confirmed.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's redundancy dismissal was unfair and whether it amounted to direct or indirect age or sex discrimination, given her long service and part-time hours due to childcare.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to COVID-19, conducted a fair consultation, and used objective selection criteria. The claimant scored highest but no suitable alternative role existed for her one-day-a-week pattern.
- No compensation awarded as the dismissal was fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service does not guarantee protection from redundancy if the role is genuinely eliminated.
- Employers must show a fair consultation process and objective selection criteria to defend a redundancy dismissal.
- Part-time workers may face redundancy if no suitable alternative role exists for their specific hours, even if they score highly in selection.
A long-serving employee loses her role
This case shows how even a 28-year career can end in redundancy when business needs change. The claimant, an expert consultant for La Mer at Harrods, had worked one day a week (Sundays) since 2017 to balance childcare. When COVID-19 hit, the respondent reduced its workforce by 30%, and her role was at risk.
What the employer did right
The tribunal highlighted several steps that made the dismissal fair. The respondent conducted a genuine redundancy consultation over several meetings, considered alternatives like reduced hours, and used a selection matrix based on skills and performance. The claimant scored highest, but no role existed for her specific Sunday-only pattern. The offer of reduced hours on a Sunday was not accepted.
Why discrimination claims failed
The claimant argued that the redundancy indirectly discriminated against women and older workers because they were more likely to work part-time. However, the tribunal found that the requirement to work flexible hours was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (business efficiency). The claimant's part-time status was due to her own choice, not the employer's policy.
Key takeaway
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes can be fair even for long-serving employees, provided the employer follows proper consultation, uses objective criteria, and genuinely considers alternatives. The tribunal will scrutinise the process, not just the outcome.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal upheld: how a small employer handled pandemic restructuring fairly
A Watford tribunal found that Flitetec Ltd fairly dismissed a senior sales account manager for redundancy after losing 70% of its revenue during the pandemic. The claim was dismissed.
37 years' service not enough: redundancy selection using pipeline metric upheld
A Business Development Manager with 37 years' service was fairly dismissed after being selected for redundancy using a pipeline metric. The Manchester tribunal rejected his claim that the criteria were designed to target him.
Redundancy selection upheld despite parental leave concerns: a fair process
A tribunal ruled that a mechanical maintenance engineer with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy, rejecting claims that his parental leave was the real reason.
Redundancy dismissal upheld after COVID revenue drop: a fair process
A Customer Services Officer with 5 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after her employer's room hire revenue plummeted during the pandemic. The tribunal rejected claims of disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.