Long-serving staff unfairly dismissed after redundancy process ignored own grievance policy
Three long-serving duty officers were unfairly dismissed when their employer failed to follow its own grievance policy before making them redundant. The tribunal awarded compensation limited to two months' furlough pay.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #grievance-policy
- #status-quo-clause
- #polkey-deduction
- #furlough
- #long-service
Key facts
- The claimants were employed as Passenger Services Duty Officers for between 23 and 32 years.
- The respondent lost customers and reduced the need for PSDOs, leading to a genuine redundancy situation.
- The respondent's grievance policy contained a status quo clause preventing changes until grievance exhausted.
- The respondent dismissed the claimants before completing the grievance process for their second grievance.
- The tribunal found the dismissals would have been fair if the grievance policy had been followed, but the procedural breach made them unfair.
- Compensation was limited to two months' furlough pay due to a Polkey reduction.
Timeline
-
Ms Singels started employment
Ms Singels began working for the respondent.
-
Mr Rowland started employment
Mr Rowland began working for the respondent.
-
Mr Lowndes started employment
Mr Lowndes began working for the respondent.
-
Business need for PSDOs reduced
The respondent lost customers and introduced an HR portal, reducing the need for PSDOs.
-
Initial redundancy meeting
The respondent's General Manager explained the proposal to dispense with PSDOs.
-
Claimants placed on furlough
Due to the pandemic, the redundancy process was paused and claimants were furloughed.
-
Consultation resumed
RCJ met with claimants to resume redundancy consultation.
-
Final consultation meetings
Claimants attended final redundancy consultation meetings on 16, 17, and 18 December.
-
Dismissal letters issued
The respondent issued dismissal letters terminating employment on 31 December 2020.
-
Second grievance appeal lodged
Claimants appealed RB's decision on their second grievance.
-
Polkey cut-off date
Tribunal found that if grievance policy had been followed, dismissals would have been delayed until end of February 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the claimants for redundancy when its own grievance policy required a 'status quo' to be maintained until any grievance was exhausted. The key question was whether the procedural breach made the dismissions unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimants were unfairly dismissed because the employer failed to follow its own grievance policy, which contained a 'status quo' clause preventing changes until the grievance process was completed. The dismissals were procedurally unfair.
However, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning it found that even if the correct procedure had been followed, the claimants would still have been dismissed by the end of February 2021. As a result, compensation was limited to the pay they would have received during that period (two months' furlough pay).
Compensation awarded:
- Miss Singels: £3,676
- Mr Rowland: £3,648
- Mr Lowndes: £3,028
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow their own policies, especially grievance procedures with status quo clauses, before making dismissals.
- Even a procedural breach can make a dismissal unfair, but compensation may be reduced if the same outcome would have occurred anyway (Polkey reduction).
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process, but the length of service does not automatically prevent redundancy if the role is genuinely redundant.
- If you are facing redundancy and have an unresolved grievance, check whether your employer's policy requires them to pause the redundancy process until the grievance is resolved.
When a policy promises more than it delivers
Three employees with between 23 and 32 years of service were made redundant by Cobalt Ground Solutions Ltd after the company lost customers and reduced its need for Passenger Services Duty Officers. The redundancy situation was genuine, but the process went wrong when the employer failed to follow its own grievance policy.
The company's policy contained a 'status quo' clause: no changes could be made until a grievance was exhausted. The employees had lodged a second grievance about the redundancy process, but the employer dismissed them before that grievance was completed. The tribunal found this procedural breach made the dismissals unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal noted that the dismissals would have been fair if the grievance policy had been followed. The employer could have simply waited until the grievance process concluded before issuing dismissal letters. By rushing ahead, it turned what would have been a fair redundancy into an unfair dismissal.
Why the result matters
This case shows that employers cannot ignore their own procedures, even in a genuine redundancy situation. A policy that promises a 'status quo' during a grievance must be honoured. However, the compensation was limited because the tribunal found that even with the correct process, the employees would have been dismissed just two months later. The lesson for employees is that a procedural breach can win the legal argument, but if the outcome would have been the same, the compensation may be modest.
Similar cases
Café manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy and missed vacancy
A café manager with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to inform her of a sales assistant vacancy during redundancy consultation. The tribunal awarded £560.28 after applying a 66.7% Polkey reduction.
Waitress with 22 years' service loses unfair dismissal claim due to time limits
A waitress who worked for Lornar Ltd for 22 years had her unfair dismissal claim rejected because she missed the three-month time limit by several months.
Rushed redundancy during Covid: 16-year director unfairly dismissed after flawed consultation
A Regional Sales Director with 16 years' service was unfairly dismissed for redundancy after the employer rushed consultation and failed to consider alternatives. The tribunal awarded £34,295 but applied a 90% Polkey reduction.
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.