Telephone Critiquer dismissed by email without consultation: unfair redundancy
A telephone critiquer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer made her redundant by email without any individual consultation, despite promising it. The tribunal awarded £3,996.76.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #consultation-failure
- #small-employer
- #selection-criteria
- #timekeeping
- #kpi-scoring
- #acas-code
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Telephone Critiquer from 1 August 2014 until 8 October 2020.
- The respondent made eight of seventeen telephone critiquers redundant due to a 49% revenue drop caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
- The respondent sent an 'at risk' letter on 22 September 2020 promising individual consultation but never held any consultation with the claimant.
- The claimant was dismissed by email on 8 October 2020, minutes before a meeting she believed was for consultation.
- The selection criteria included timekeeping, which was scored based on how early staff arrived, not contractual hours, and the claimant was never late.
- The respondent did not consider alternative employment or voluntary redundancies.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Total Telephone Solutions Ltd as a Telephone Critiquer.
-
National lockdown
Covid-19 pandemic caused significant business downturn; claimant and others placed on furlough.
-
At risk letter sent
Respondent emailed all 17 telephone critiquers a letter stating they were at risk of redundancy and promising individual consultation.
-
Meeting invitation
Respondent invited claimant to a meeting on 8 October, which claimant believed was for consultation.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was emailed a dismissal letter at 11:54am, then attended a meeting at noon where she was told she was selected for redundancy.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed by email, disputing her scores and lack of consultation.
-
Appeal rejected
Respondent rejected the appeal by letter, stating consultation was internal among managers.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Claims for age discrimination, disability discrimination, notice pay, holiday pay, and redundancy payment were withdrawn.
-
Liability hearing
Tribunal heard evidence and found the dismissal unfair due to lack of consultation.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded £3,996.76 compensatory award, with no Polkey reduction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted fairly by dismissing the claimant for redundancy without individual consultation, and whether the selection criteria were reasonable.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The employer sent an 'at risk' letter promising individual consultation but never held any. Instead, the claimant was dismissed by email minutes before a meeting she believed was for consultation. The selection criteria included timekeeping based on how early staff arrived, not contractual hours, and the claimant was never late. The employer also failed to consider alternative employment or voluntary redundancies.
Compensation:
- Compensatory award: £3,996.76
- No Polkey reduction (0%)
- No contributory fault
Lessons & takeaways
- Even small employers with no HR department must carry out meaningful individual consultation before making someone redundant.
- Selection criteria must be objective and based on clear, relevant factors—not arbitrary measures like how early staff arrive.
- Dismissing an employee by email without a proper meeting is a clear procedural failure that tribunals will not accept.
- Employers should consider alternatives such as voluntary redundancy or redeployment before proceeding with compulsory redundancies.
This case shows how a well-intentioned redundancy process can go badly wrong when an employer rushes the procedure. Total Telephone Solutions Ltd faced a genuine business need to cut costs due to the pandemic, but its handling of the redundancy left the claimant—a telephone critiquer with six years' service—without any chance to discuss her position or challenge her selection.
The employer sent an 'at risk' letter on 22 September 2020 promising individual consultation, but never held any. Instead, on 8 October 2020, the claimant received a dismissal email at 11:54am, minutes before a meeting she thought was for consultation. At that meeting, she was simply told she had been selected. The selection criteria themselves were questionable: timekeeping was scored based on how early staff arrived, not on lateness, and the claimant was never late. The employer also failed to consider voluntary redundancies or alternative roles.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal noted that the employer, a small company with no HR department, had sought advice from a retired HR professional. However, that advice did not prevent fundamental errors. A proper process would have included: individual consultation meetings where the claimant could discuss the criteria and scores; a genuine opportunity to suggest alternatives; and a fair appeal process. Instead, the appeal was rejected with the explanation that consultation had been 'internal among managers'—which is not consultation with the employee.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that the duty to consult individually is not a formality. Even where redundancy is inevitable, employees are entitled to a fair process. The tribunal made no reduction for Polkey (the chance that dismissal would have occurred anyway), indicating that a fair process could have led to a different outcome. For employees facing redundancy, this case highlights the importance of checking whether consultation actually happened and whether selection criteria were objective and applied consistently.
Similar cases
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.
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.
Redundancy selection upheld despite employee's COVID-19 safety disclosures
A structural fabricator who raised COVID-19 safety concerns was fairly selected for redundancy when his employer closed a business unit. The tribunal found no link between his disclosures and his dismissal.
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.