Operations manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation
A Newcastle tribunal found that Angel of Corbridge Ltd unfairly dismissed an operations manager with 17 years' service by failing to disclose the selection matrix and not considering a suitable alternative role. She was awarded £12,799.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent from 27 July 2003 until dismissal on 10 August 2020.
- The respondent suffered a severe drop in revenue due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy as part of a restructure of the management team.
- The respondent failed to provide the claimant with the 'accountability matrix' used to select her role for redundancy.
- The respondent did not provide details of a supervisor role that became available during the appeal process.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded compensation with a 30% Polkey reduction.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as waiting staff.
-
Crisis meeting declined
Claimant declined to attend a face-to-face crisis meeting due to safety concerns about COVID-19.
-
Furlough started
All staff, including claimant, placed on furlough at 80% pay.
-
Voluntary redundancy offered
Respondent offered voluntary redundancy to employees; no one accepted.
-
Claimant at risk of redundancy
Respondent wrote to claimant stating her role of Operations Manager was at risk.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant attended first redundancy consultation meeting with Mr Hogg.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant presented alternative proposals to avoid redundancy.
-
Third consultation meeting
Further consultation; respondent considered but rejected alternative proposals.
-
Dismissed by reason of redundancy
Claimant was informed she would be dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant attended appeal hearing with Mr Kurdi; appeal was not upheld.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal and awarded remedy to be determined.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded total compensation of £12,799.12.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant by reason of redundancy, specifically whether the consultation process was fair and whether suitable alternative employment was properly considered.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair. The employer had a genuine redundancy situation due to COVID-19, but the consultation was flawed: the accountability matrix used to select the claimant's role was not shared, and a vacant supervisor role was not mentioned during the appeal. Compensation was reduced by 30% under Polkey to reflect the chance that dismissal would have occurred even with a fair process.
- Total compensation: £12,799.12
- Basic award: included in total
- Compensatory award: included in total
- Polkey reduction: 30%
- Section 38 award: included for failure to provide written particulars
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must share all documents used in the selection process, such as scoring matrices, during redundancy consultation.
- During a redundancy appeal, employers should inform the employee of any suitable alternative vacancies that have arisen.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a thorough process; failing to disclose key selection criteria can render a dismissal unfair.
- A Polkey reduction can apply if the tribunal thinks a fair process might still have led to dismissal, reducing compensation.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how even a genuine redundancy situation can lead to an unfair dismissal finding if the consultation process is not handled properly. The claimant, an operations manager with 17 years' service, was selected for redundancy after the pub's revenue plummeted during the pandemic. However, the employer made two critical mistakes: it failed to provide the 'accountability matrix' used to decide which roles were at risk, and it did not tell the claimant about a supervisor role that became vacant during her appeal.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine business need to restructure. But a fair process requires transparency. Sharing the matrix would have allowed the claimant to challenge her selection. Similarly, informing her of the supervisor role—even if she might not have accepted it—would have shown that alternative employment was properly considered. These omissions meant the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy procedures must be followed meticulously, especially for long-serving employees. The 30% Polkey reduction shows that tribunals will reduce compensation if they believe a fair process might still have led to dismissal, but the core finding of unfairness stands. For employees, it underscores the importance of requesting all selection documents and challenging any lack of transparency. For employers, it reinforces that consultation is not just a tick-box exercise—it must be meaningful and open.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Paralegal dismissed while pregnant: redundancy that failed to consult fairly
A paralegal with 3.5 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to pregnancy when her employer made her redundant without proper consultation or considering alternative roles. The tribunal awarded £18,792.26.
Director of Partnerships made redundant: dismissal unfair but compensation wiped out
A director of partnerships was unfairly dismissed for redundancy due to a lack of consultation, but the tribunal reduced his compensation to nil because the redundancy was inevitable. He also won £1,211 for an unlawful deduction from wages.