General Manager unfairly dismissed after rushed redundancy process
A General Manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer gave him just one day to apply for new roles during a pandemic restructure. The tribunal found procedural flaws but applied a 100% Polkey deduction, meaning he received no compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #consultation-flaws
- #polkey-deduction
- #pandemic-restructuring
- #fait-accompli
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a General Manager from 8 January 2015 until 27 August 2021.
- The respondent restructured due to the pandemic, removing 5 Thistle GM roles and replacing them with 2 Cluster GM roles.
- The claimant was told he was at risk of redundancy on 9 October 2020 without prior warning and given one working day to apply for the new roles.
- The claimant applied for the CGM roles but was unsuccessful after an interview on 20 October 2020.
- The claimant's employment continued for 9 months with furlough and a secondment before termination.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to procedural flaws in the initial consultation but applied a 100% Polkey deduction.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started work for the respondent as a Value Centre General Manager.
-
Hotel Manager role
Claimant became Hotel Manager for the Hardrock Hotel.
-
General Manager appointment
Claimant appointed General Manager for Thistle Kensington Gardens and Thistle Hyde Park.
-
Pandemic impact
Most hotels closed; claimant continued caretaking duties until November 2020.
-
At risk notification
Claimant told his role was at risk of redundancy; given one working day to apply for new CGM roles.
-
Interview for CGM
Claimant interviewed for Cluster General Manager roles but was unsuccessful.
-
Unsuccessful notification
Claimant informed he did not secure a CGM role and remained at risk.
-
Alternative proposal
Claimant submitted a counter-proposal which was rejected by Debbie Moore.
-
Secondment start
Claimant began temporary secondment in the property team.
-
Agreement to end employment
Claimant and HR Director agreed employment would end on 27 August 2021.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment terminated by reason of redundancy.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard; outcome not upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a fair reason for dismissal, focusing on whether the consultation, selection process, and search for alternative employment were adequate.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
- The employer restructured due to the pandemic, removing five General Manager roles and creating two Cluster General Manager roles.
- The claimant was told his role was at risk on 9 October 2020 and given just one working day to apply for the new roles. He applied but was unsuccessful after an interview.
- The tribunal held that the initial consultation was procedurally flawed: there was no prior warning and the timescale was unreasonably short, making the process a 'fait accompli'.
- However, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey deduction, finding that even with a fair procedure, the claimant would have been dismissed because the restructure was genuine and he was not the strongest candidate for the new roles.
- As a result, the claimant was awarded no compensation.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must give employees adequate warning and a reasonable timeframe to apply for alternative roles during a redundancy process.
- A genuine business need for restructuring does not excuse procedural flaws in consultation; fair process is still required.
- Even if a dismissal is found unfair, a Polkey deduction can reduce compensation to zero if the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway.
- Employees should keep records of all communications and timelines during redundancy consultations to challenge procedural unfairness.
A redundancy process that moved too fast
This case shows how a well-intentioned restructuring can go wrong if the employer rushes the consultation process. The General Manager, who had six years of service, was told on a Friday that his role was at risk and given just one working day to apply for two new Cluster General Manager roles. The tribunal described this as a 'fait accompli' — the decision had effectively been made before any meaningful consultation took place.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer, GLH Hotels Management (UK) Limited, was facing genuine financial pressure from the pandemic and needed to restructure. However, the tribunal found that the initial lack of warning and the extremely short deadline made the process unfair. A reasonable employer would have given the claimant more time to consider the new roles and prepare his application. The employer also failed to properly consider alternative employment options, although the claimant's employment continued for another nine months through furlough and a secondment.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that even in a genuine redundancy situation, procedural fairness is essential. The tribunal applied a 100% Polkey deduction because it concluded that the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process — he was not the strongest candidate for the new roles. This meant the claimant won his case on liability but received no compensation. For employees, it highlights the importance of challenging procedural flaws early, but also the risk that a tribunal may still find the dismissal inevitable.
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.
Unfair redundancy dismissal: 75% Polkey reduction for asbestos supervisor
An asbestos supervisor unfairly dismissed for redundancy was awarded £3,298 after a 75% Polkey reduction. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but applied a large reduction for the chance of fair dismissal.
Chef with 35 years' service dismissed without consultation when restaurant closed
A chef who worked for 35 years was made redundant without any consultation or notice when his restaurant closed. The tribunal awarded £17,766 in redundancy and notice pay, but reduced compensation for unfair dismissal by 100% because the business was bound to close.
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.