Aftercare Manager dismissed for refusing alternative role: redundancy dismissal upheld
An Aftercare Manager with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after refusing a suitable alternative role due to childcare commitments. The tribunal rejected claims of age discrimination and protected disclosure detriment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #pool-of-one
- #age-discrimination
- #protected-disclosure
- #fire-safety
- #childcare-responsibilities
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Aftercare Manager from 5 October 2015 to 15 November 2019.
- The respondent's business declined significantly, reducing headcount from 18 to 8 by September 2019.
- The claimant was offered alternative work as Finishing Foreman at Kingston but refused due to travel and childcare.
- The claimant alleged age-discriminatory remarks by former director Martin Shotton, but these were made before May 2019 and not raised until April 2022.
- The claimant alleged a protected disclosure about fire breaks, but the tribunal found he did not make such a disclosure.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and was fair.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as Aftercare Manager at James Taylor Construction Ltd.
-
Martin Shotton left employment
Construction Director Martin Shotton, alleged to have made ageist remarks, left the respondent.
-
Discussion about moving to Kingston
Mr Sandwith phoned claimant to discuss moving to Kingston as Finishing Foreman; conversation became heated.
-
Risk of redundancy notice
Claimant received letter stating he was at risk of redundancy, invited to meeting on 4 October.
-
Redundancy consultation meeting
Meeting held; respondent offered alternative role with Saturday work to accommodate childcare.
-
Claimant rejected alternative role
Claimant emailed stating the offer was not acceptable due to travel and hours.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Respondent sent dismissal letter citing redundancy; last day of employment 15 November 2019.
-
Claimant received dismissal letter
Letter received by post; claimant did not appeal.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant presented claim for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and protected disclosure detriment.
-
Hearing commenced
Substantive hearing at Watford Employment Tribunal over two days.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, whether he was subjected to direct age discrimination, and whether he suffered a detriment for making a protected disclosure.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
- Unfair dismissal: The respondent had a genuine redundancy situation, conducted a fair consultation, and offered a suitable alternative role. The claimant's refusal did not make the dismissal unfair.
- Age discrimination: The claims were out of time, and the tribunal declined to extend time as the alleged remarks were made more than three years before the claim.
- Protected disclosure: The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant made a disclosure about fire breaks; therefore, the detriment claim failed.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are offered a suitable alternative role during redundancy, refusing it may weaken an unfair dismissal claim unless the offer is unreasonable.
- Age discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the alleged act; delays of more than a few months are unlikely to be extended.
- To rely on a protected disclosure, you must clearly communicate the concern to your employer and be able to prove it was made.
- Employers can fairly dismiss for redundancy if they follow a genuine consultation process and consider alternative work, even if the employee rejects it.
When redundancy leads to dismissal
This case shows how a genuine redundancy situation, combined with a reasonable offer of alternative work, can result in a fair dismissal even when the employee has personal reasons for refusing the role. The claimant, an Aftercare Manager with four years' service, was made redundant after his employer's business declined significantly. He was offered a position as Finishing Foreman at a different site but turned it down because the travel and hours conflicted with his childcare responsibilities.
What the employer did right
James Taylor Construction Ltd followed a proper process: they notified the claimant of the risk of redundancy, held a consultation meeting, and offered an alternative role with adjusted hours to accommodate his childcare needs. The tribunal found this fell within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant's failure to appeal the dismissal also counted against him.
Why the other claims failed
The claimant also alleged age discrimination based on remarks made by a former director, but those remarks were made before May 2019 and the claim was not brought until 2022 – well outside the three-month time limit. The tribunal declined to extend time. As for the protected disclosure claim, the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant had raised a concern about fire breaks, so the claim of detriment for making a disclosure could not succeed.
Key takeaway
This case is a reminder that redundancy dismissals can be fair if the employer shows a genuine business need, consults properly, and offers suitable alternative work – even if the employee has legitimate personal reasons for declining.
Similar cases
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.
Voluntary redundancy: stage crew member with dyslexia wins unfair dismissal claim
A long-serving stage crew member with dyslexia has won his unfair dismissal claim against Welsh National Opera after the tribunal found the employer failed to discuss reasonable adjustments during a redundancy process. All other claims, including age discrimination and protected disclosure complaints, were dismissed.
Managing Director made redundant in a pool of one: tribunal finds fair process
A tribunal has dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination by a Managing Director made redundant when her role was eliminated in a cost-saving restructure.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.