Redundancy dismissal unfair after employer ignored external appeal recommendation
A New Homes Business Development Manager with four years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy process where the employer rejected an external appeal recommendation to uphold his appeal. The tribunal also found a breach of contract over pension and healthcare payments on notice pay.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #subjective-selection-criteria
- #flawed-appeal-process
- #polkey-reduction
- #breach-of-contract-pension
- #breach-of-contract-healthcare
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a New Homes Business Development Manager from 3 July 2017 until 19 October 2021.
- The respondent decided to reduce the number of such roles from two to one due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
- The redundancy process included a group consultation, a presentation and interview, but no individual consultation meetings took place.
- The interview used subjective criteria without scoring benchmarks or moderation.
- The appeal was outsourced to Kingswood Group, who recommended upholding the appeal, but the respondent rejected that recommendation after a three-month delay.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and the appeal process flawed.
Timeline
-
Redundancy situation identified
Senior managers determined that a redundancy affecting the claimant's role was likely to arise.
-
Script prepared for redundancy meeting
Lesley Garwood produced a script to be read to affected employees.
-
Zoom meeting informing of redundancy risk
The claimant and Mr Scott were informed they were at risk of redundancy and a 7-day consultation period would follow.
-
Formal redundancy letters sent
Letters dated 1 October 2021 were sent to the claimant and Mr Scott, outlining the process.
-
Group consultation meeting
The claimant and Mr Scott were asked if they wished to apply for the remaining role; both confirmed. No individual meetings occurred.
-
Interview details emailed
Emails sent after 4pm confirming interviews on 11 October and the presentation title.
-
Interviews held
The claimant and Mr Scott were interviewed by a panel including Paul Wilson, John Doughty, and John Phillips.
-
Claimant dismissed
The claimant was informed he was unsuccessful and made redundant effective immediately, receiving a PILON payment.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant exercised his right to appeal by letter.
-
Appeal hearing
Kingswood Group held an appeal hearing with the claimant only.
-
Appeal recommendation
Kingswood Group recommended upholding the appeal; the respondent did not follow the recommendation.
-
Appeal outcome communicated
The respondent wrote to the claimant dismissing his appeal after a three-month delay.
-
ET1 claim issued
The claimant issued his claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the redundancy dismissal was unfair due to procedural flaws, including the use of subjective selection criteria, lack of individual consultation, and a flawed appeal process where the employer ignored an external recommendation to uphold the appeal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The redundancy process was flawed: there were no individual consultation meetings, the interview used subjective criteria without scoring benchmarks or moderation, and the appeal was mishandled. The employer outsourced the appeal to Kingswood Group, who recommended upholding it, but the employer rejected that recommendation after a three-month delay.
The tribunal also found that the employer breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay pension contributions and health insurance on his notice pay. A claim for death in service benefits was dismissed.
Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing. The tribunal indicated a Polkey reduction of 20% to reflect the chance that the claimant might have been dismissed even with a fair process.
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure redundancy selection criteria are objective, with clear scoring benchmarks and moderation, to avoid findings of unfairness.
- Hold individual consultation meetings with each at-risk employee, even if group consultation has taken place.
- If you outsource an appeal, you should follow the external recommendation unless there are compelling reasons not to, and communicate the outcome promptly.
- When making a payment in lieu of notice, remember to include all contractual benefits such as pension contributions and health insurance.
- Length of service matters: employees with four years' service are entitled to a fair process, and shortcuts can be costly.
A redundancy process that fell short
This case shows how a redundancy process can go wrong when an employer takes shortcuts. The claimant, a New Homes Business Development Manager with four years' service, was made redundant after his employer decided to reduce the number of similar roles from two to one due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The tribunal found that while the redundancy situation was genuine, the process used to select who would stay was unfair.
The employer held a group consultation meeting but no individual meetings, even though the claimant and his colleague both wanted to apply for the remaining role. The selection process consisted of a presentation and interview, but the criteria were subjective and there were no scoring benchmarks or moderation. The claimant was given only a few days' notice of the interview and presentation topic.
The appeal that was ignored
Perhaps the most striking flaw was in the appeal process. The employer outsourced the appeal to Kingswood Group, who recommended upholding the claimant's appeal after finding several issues with the process. However, the employer rejected that recommendation and took three months to communicate the decision to the claimant. The tribunal noted that the employer had not provided a good reason for ignoring the external recommendation.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by holding individual consultation meetings, using objective selection criteria with clear benchmarks, and following the independent appeal recommendation or at least explaining why it was rejected. The tribunal also found that the employer breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay pension contributions and health insurance on his notice pay — a common oversight that can lead to additional claims.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even in genuine redundancy situations, employers must follow a fair process. The use of subjective criteria and the failure to properly consider an appeal recommendation can render a dismissal unfair. For employees, it highlights the importance of challenging procedural flaws and ensuring that contractual benefits are paid during notice periods.
Similar cases
Part-time worker dismissed for redundancy without consultation: unfair dismissal but no discrimination
A part-time Operations Assistant with Long Covid was unfairly dismissed when her employer decided to make her redundant before any consultation. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but applied a 60% Polkey reduction.
Spray polisher unfairly dismissed after hip replacements: employer refused phased return
A spray polisher with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused his proposed phased return following bilateral hip replacements. The tribunal awarded £4,250 but rejected disability discrimination claims.
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.
Administrator made redundant by small charity: dismissal fair despite consultation shortcomings
An employment tribunal has ruled that a small charity's decision to make a long-serving administrator redundant was fair, even though the consultation process was flawed. No compensation was awarded.