Director of Engineering made redundant after family leave: unfair process but no automatic unfair dismissal
A director with 12 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy process, but the tribunal rejected his claim that he was targeted because of his family leave. He was awarded £16,516.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #competitive-interview
- #polkey-reduction
- #misconduct
- #family-leave
- #unfair-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Director of Engineering from 3 September 2007 until 2 July 2020.
- The respondent restructured due to financial losses and pressure from its parent company.
- The claimant applied for the Tools Business Unit Director role but was unsuccessful; Dr Brunton was appointed.
- The claimant accessed colleagues' HR files and the CEO's desk without authorisation in April and May 2020.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy, not family leave, but the process was unfair.
- The claimant was awarded £16,516 in compensation after reductions for Polkey and contributory conduct.
Timeline
-
Birth of claimant's daughter
The claimant's wife gave birth to their daughter.
-
Daughter hospitalised
The claimant's daughter was taken to hospital; he took three days off.
-
Restructure proposals presented
Dr Rumsby presented restructuring proposals to the Senior Leadership team.
-
Final strategy circulated
Dr Rumsby circulated the final strategy, structure and budget for 2020.
-
Claimant searched CEO's desk
The claimant went to the office late at night and accessed Dr Rumsby's private drawer.
-
Claimant accessed HR files
The claimant accessed staff HR files and learned he was unsuccessful for the Tools role.
-
Dismissal by reason of redundancy
The claimant was issued with notice of redundancy.
-
Liability judgment
Employment Judge Tynan found the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
-
Remedy judgment
The tribunal awarded £16,516 in compensation by agreement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed because he took family leave (which would be automatically unfair) or for redundancy, and whether the redundancy process was fair.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was dismissed for redundancy, not because of his family leave, so the claim for automatic unfair dismissal failed. However, the redundancy process was unfair because the respondent did not properly consult with the claimant about the selection criteria or the decision to appoint another candidate to the role he applied for.
Compensation was reduced by 60% under the Polkey principle to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been dismissed anyway if a fair process had been followed. No contributory fault reduction was applied.
- Basic award: £0 (already paid)
- Compensatory award: £16,516 (after Polkey reduction)
- Total: £16,516
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are on family leave and made redundant, you must show that the leave was the reason for dismissal to succeed in an automatic unfair dismissal claim.
- Employers must genuinely consult with employees at risk of redundancy, even if the role is being filled by a preferred candidate.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal thinks a fair process would still have led to dismissal.
- Accessing colleagues' HR files without authorisation can harm your credibility and may lead to a contributory fault reduction.
A genuine redundancy, but a flawed process
This case shows that even when a redundancy is genuine, employers can still fall foul of the law if they don't follow a fair process. The claimant, a Director of Engineering with 12 years' service, was made redundant after a restructure driven by financial losses. He applied for a new role but was unsuccessful, and the tribunal found that the respondent had already decided to appoint another candidate before properly consulting with the claimant.
The claimant also alleged that he was targeted because he had taken time off to care for his daughter, but the tribunal rejected this. The evidence showed that the restructure was driven by genuine business needs, not by the claimant's family leave.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent's main failing was in the consultation process. The tribunal noted that the claimant was not given a meaningful opportunity to comment on the selection criteria or the decision to appoint Dr Brunton. A fair process would have involved discussing the claimant's concerns about the job description (which required a PhD he didn't have) and considering alternative roles.
Additionally, the claimant's unauthorised access to HR files and the CEO's desk damaged his credibility, but the tribunal did not apply a contributory fault reduction because the respondent had not raised it at the remedy hearing.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the Polkey principle can significantly reduce compensation. The tribunal applied a 60% reduction because it thought there was a good chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process. Employees should be aware that even if they win their unfair dismissal claim, the compensation may be far less than expected if the tribunal thinks the outcome would have been the same.
For employers, the lesson is clear: even in a genuine redundancy, you must follow a fair process, including proper consultation and genuine consideration of alternatives. Failing to do so can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal and a compensation award.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal for research nurse: pool of one and Polkey reduction
A respiratory research nurse was unfairly dismissed when her fixed-term contract was not renewed due to financial deficits. The tribunal awarded £11,754 after finding a 50% chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
29-year employee dismissed without any redundancy process after company sale
A warehouse operative with 29 years' service was found to have been unfairly dismissed after her employer sold the business and mistakenly treated her as an agency worker. The tribunal awarded over £11,000 in compensation.
Sales manager dismissed in flawed redundancy process wins £4,105 after 80% Polkey cut
A 66-year-old sales manager with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy consultation during the pandemic, but the tribunal reduced his compensation by 80% because he would likely have been dismissed anyway.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.