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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a sales manager from 12 August 2013 until 11 August 2020.
- The claimant suffered a heart attack on 30 March 2020 and was signed off work until 16 May 2020.
- The respondent restructured due to the Covid-19 pandemic, eliminating the sales manager role and creating a marketing manager role.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 11 August 2020 after a series of consultation meetings.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to lack of genuine consultation but applied an 80% Polkey reduction.
- The respondent conceded disability but the s15 disability discrimination claim was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a sales manager.
-
Performance praised
Managing Director Mr Dunn praised the claimant's sales success in an email.
-
Commission renegotiation discussed
Claimant expressed concern about commission payment if he were no longer employed.
-
Heart attack
Claimant suffered a heart attack and was admitted to hospital for emergency stent fitting.
-
Furlough
Claimant was placed on furlough due to Covid-19 downturn.
-
First redundancy meeting
Claimant was told he was at risk of redundancy.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant suggested part-time work but was told it was not an option.
-
Third consultation meeting
Claimant confirmed he was not interested in the marketing manager role.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy with immediate effect.
-
Appeal and grievance
Claimant appealed redundancy and raised a grievance alleging disability discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the redundancy dismissal was unfair due to inadequate consultation, and whether the employer discriminated against the claimant because of something arising from his disability (heart attack).
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal but found that the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process, so compensation was reduced by 80%. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed.
- Compensatory award: £3,605.76 (after 80% Polkey reduction)
- Unlawful deduction claim: £3,791 (already paid, no further award)
- Total damages: £4,105.76
Lessons & takeaways
- Redundancy consultation must be genuine and meaningful; a tick-box exercise will likely render the dismissal unfair.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, compensation can be substantially reduced if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway under a fair process (Polkey reduction).
- A disability discrimination claim under s15 Equality Act requires a causal link between the disability and the treatment; it is not enough that the employer knew of the disability.
- Claimants should keep clear records of all meetings and correspondence, as contemporaneous documents are key evidence.
A redundancy process that fell short
When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, North West Logistics Limited restructured, eliminating the sales manager role. The claimant, a 66-year-old sales manager with 7 years' service, was placed at risk of redundancy. Over a series of consultation meetings, the employer presented a new marketing manager role as the only alternative, but the claimant was not interested. He was dismissed on 11 August 2020.
The tribunal found that the consultation was not genuine. The employer had already decided on the outcome and did not properly consider alternatives such as part-time work. This made the dismissal unfair. However, the tribunal also found that even with a fair process, the claimant would probably have been dismissed anyway, so compensation was reduced by 80%.
What the employer could have done differently
A genuine consultation involves listening to the employee's suggestions and considering alternatives with an open mind. Here, the employer dismissed the claimant's suggestion of part-time work without proper consideration. A fair process would have included exploring all options and giving the employee a real opportunity to influence the decision.
Why this case matters
This case shows that a flawed redundancy process will lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, but the compensation may be significantly reduced if the outcome would have been the same. It also highlights the difficulty of proving disability discrimination when the employer's actions are not directly linked to the disability. For employees, it underscores the importance of engaging in consultation and documenting any suggestions or concerns.
Similar cases
Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
Care worker wins unfair dismissal claim but gets nothing after conduct findings
A former care worker succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Mihomecare Limited, but the tribunal reduced her compensation to zero because of her own conduct and the likelihood she would have been dismissed anyway.
GP with 16 years' service wins disability harassment claim over sickness review invitation
A GP who was invited to a final sickness review meeting after shielding during the pandemic has won her claim of disability discrimination and harassment. The tribunal found the invitation was discriminatory, but dismissed her constructive dismissal claim.
NHS worker dismissed due to disability: unfair dismissal and discrimination claim partially succeeds
An NHS employee was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of his disability. The tribunal awarded £26,852.61, reduced by 35% for the chance he could have been fairly dismissed.