Redundancy dismissal upheld after employee declined alternative role
A Digital Producer with three years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after declining a suitable alternative role. The tribunal found Virgin Media acted reasonably throughout the consultation and selection process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #alternative-role-offer
- #trial-period
- #external-advert-error
- #consultation-process
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Digital Producer from 14 May 2018.
- The respondent planned to move from AEM to a headless content management system, reducing Digital Producer roles from 7 to 6 Content Manager roles.
- The claimant did not apply for the Content Manager role but applied for and was offered a Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Partner role with higher pay.
- The claimant declined the DE&I role, citing salary and scope concerns.
- The claimant believed she was refused a four-week trial period, but the tribunal found she was not refused.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy and the respondent acted reasonably.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started employment as a Digital Producer.
-
Redundancy announcement
Mr Godfrey announced proposed changes to the Production Team, making all 7 Digital Producer roles at risk.
-
Grievance lodged
Claimant submitted a written grievance arguing the proposed changes were unfeasible.
-
Application for DE&I roles
Claimant applied for Head of DE&I and DE&I Partner roles.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant attended first individual consultation meeting; she understood the reasons but disagreed with the business rationale.
-
Offer of DE&I Partner role
Claimant was offered the DE&I Partner role by Ms Dunning; she asked for time to think.
-
External advert discovered
Claimant saw a LinkedIn advert for a mobile phone AEM content producer, believing her role was being advertised externally.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant attended her second and final consultation meeting; she asked about redundancy payment if she rejected the DE&I role.
-
Phone call with Ms Dunning
Claimant and Ms Dunning discussed the DE&I role; tribunal found no refusal of a trial period.
-
Decision to dismiss
Mr Godfrey decided to terminate the claimant's employment; claimant later emailed saying she declined the DE&I role and would take redundancy.
-
Last day at work
Claimant's last day at work; she received a redundancy payment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and, if so, whether the respondent acted reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to a change in content management systems.
- The claimant was offered a suitable alternative role (DE&I Partner) but declined it.
- The claimant was not refused a four-week trial period; the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant did not request one.
- The consultation process was adequate, and the external advert for a different role did not undermine the redundancy.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are offered an alternative role during redundancy, consider requesting a trial period in writing to protect your position.
- Employers should clearly document any discussions about trial periods to avoid disputes about what was agreed.
- An external advert for a different role does not necessarily mean your redundancy is a sham; check whether the role is genuinely different.
- Length of service matters: employees with shorter service may find it harder to challenge the fairness of a redundancy process.
When declining an alternative role leads to a fair dismissal
This case shows that an employer can fairly dismiss for redundancy even when the employee believes the process is flawed, provided the employer follows a reasonable procedure. The Digital Producer had three years' service and was at risk when Virgin Media restructured its production team. She was offered a role as a Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Partner, which she declined citing salary and scope concerns. The tribunal found that Virgin Media acted reasonably: it consulted individually, considered alternatives, and did not refuse a trial period.
What the employer did right
Virgin Media's key strength was its clear documentation and consistent evidence. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was not refused a four-week trial period, despite her belief to the contrary. The employer also explained the redundancy rationale in detail and offered a suitable alternative role. The external advert for a mobile phone AEM content producer did not undermine the redundancy, as it was a different role.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case highlights the importance of formally requesting a trial period if you are unsure about an alternative role. Simply expressing concerns may not be enough. For employers, the case confirms that a thorough consultation process and clear records can defeat an unfair dismissal claim, even if the employee disagrees with the business decision. The outcome also reflects that three years' service is relatively short, giving the employer more leeway in what is considered reasonable.
Similar cases
Site manager dismissed after failed trial period: redundancy process upheld
A site manager with two years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a trial period in a lower-paid role was deemed unsuccessful. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Redundancy dismissal upheld after employee refused selection interviews
A Client Account Manager with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after refusing to attend selection interviews and declining an alternative role. The tribunal upheld the dismissal by a majority, finding the redundancy genuine and the process reasonable.
CCTV operatives made redundant: fair dismissal after consultation and alternative roles offered
Three long-serving CCTV operatives who refused to apply for ringfenced Community Guardian roles were fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal upheld the employer's consultation process and offer of alternative employment.
Spray polisher unfairly dismissed after hip replacements: employer refused phased return
A spray polisher with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused his proposed phased return following bilateral hip replacements. The tribunal awarded £4,250 but rejected disability discrimination claims.