Membership Advisor dismissed during pandemic: redundancy was genuine
A tribunal found that Fitness 24 Limited fairly dismissed a Membership Advisor due to a genuine redundancy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, rejecting claims of unfair process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #covid-19-impact
- #pool-of-two
- #consultation-process
- #appeal-upheld
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Membership Advisor from 9 December 2019 to 4 March 2022.
- The respondent's Aldershot gym lost 40% of its membership due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with weekly turnover dropping from £35,000 to £18,000.
- The respondent decided to make one person redundant from a pool of two membership advisors.
- A consultation process was conducted including a risk scoring exercise in which the claimant participated.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and his appeal was upheld.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and the redundancy genuine.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as a Membership Advisor for Fitness 24 Limited at its Aldershot site.
-
COVID-19 pandemic begins
The global pandemic severely impacted the leisure sector, causing the respondent's business to decline.
-
Gym reopens after lockdown
The Aldershot gym reopened but membership had dropped by 40%, and weekly turnover was £18,000 compared to £35,000 pre-pandemic.
-
Landlord issues bankruptcy notice
The respondent's landlord issued a bankruptcy notice against director Mr Nolan due to unpaid rent and service charges.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy after a consultation process and risk scoring exercise.
-
Claim form received
The claimant submitted a claim of unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
-
Tribunal hearing
The case was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal via CVP before Employment Judge Forde.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding redundancy was genuine and the process fair.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was by reason of redundancy and whether the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent's Aldershot gym lost 40% of its membership due to COVID-19, with weekly turnover dropping from £35,000 to £18,000.
- The respondent decided to make one person redundant from a pool of two membership advisors.
- A consultation process was conducted, including a risk scoring exercise in which the claimant participated.
- The claimant's appeal was upheld.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation, such as a significant drop in business due to COVID-19, can justify dismissal if the process is fair.
- Employers should conduct a proper consultation process, including risk scoring and considering employee input, to demonstrate fairness.
- Even if an employee believes the redundancy is not genuine, tribunals will look at the employer's business needs and financial situation.
- Having a small workforce does not excuse a lack of consultation; but a reasonable process can still be achieved with limited resources.
When redundancy is genuine
This case shows how a significant drop in business due to the COVID-19 pandemic can create a genuine redundancy situation. The Aldershot gym lost 40% of its membership, and weekly turnover halved from £35,000 to £18,000. The landlord even issued a bankruptcy notice against the director. In such circumstances, the tribunal accepted that making one of two membership advisors redundant was a legitimate business decision.
What the employer did right
Fitness 24 Limited conducted a consultation process that included a risk scoring exercise. The claimant was able to raise concerns about his scores, and the employer considered those. The tribunal noted that the employer had weighed up all suitable steps and savings given its size and resources. The claimant also had an appeal, which was upheld. This process, though not perfect, was enough to satisfy the tribunal that the dismissal was fair.
What the claimant could not prove
The claimant argued that the redundancy was not genuine and the process unfair. However, the tribunal found no evidence that the redundancy was a sham or that the selection was for a prohibited reason. The employer's financial difficulties were real, and the consultation was reasonable. This case is a reminder that in a genuine redundancy situation, a fair process can protect the employer from an unfair dismissal claim.
Key takeaway
For employees, this case highlights that a redundancy dismissal can be fair even if you disagree with the business decision. The tribunal will focus on whether the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances, not whether the redundancy was the best option. For employers, it shows the importance of documenting the business need and conducting a meaningful consultation, even in a small business.
Similar cases
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.
Accounts manager made redundant without being offered available part-time role
An accounts manager with 15 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to offer her a part-time role that became available during her notice period. The tribunal awarded £250 for loss of statutory rights.
Administrator made redundant by small charity: dismissal fair despite consultation shortcomings
An employment tribunal has ruled that a small charity's decision to make a long-serving administrator redundant was fair, even though the consultation process was flawed. No compensation was awarded.