Senior VP dismissed by email after missing final redundancy meeting due to mother's appointment
A senior vice-president was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused to reschedule a final redundancy consultation meeting, instead sending a dismissal email when he couldn't attend due to his mother's medical appointment. The tribunal awarded £658.71 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Senior Vice-President, Digital Product and Technology from 1 July 2017.
- A restructure following a resignation led to the claimant's role being at risk of redundancy.
- The claimant raised concerns about fertility clinic emails linking him to a colleague, which he believed constituted harassment.
- The tribunal found the claimant's disclosure on 12 July 2021 was not a protected disclosure.
- The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer failed to hold a final consultation meeting when the claimant could not attend due to his mother's medical appointment.
- The tribunal found that had a fair process been followed, the claimant would have been dismissed one day later with 100% probability.
Timeline
-
Mystery letter received
The claimant received an unsigned letter at his home address alleging a relationship with a colleague, which he believed came from Amy Girdwood.
-
Whistleblower email
An anonymous email alleged an affair between the claimant and SK; investigation found unsubstantiated.
-
New confidentiality terms issued
Discovery rolled out a new confidentiality agreement; the claimant refused to sign.
-
First fertility clinic email
The claimant received an unsolicited email from a fertility clinic linking him and SK.
-
Protected disclosure conversation
The claimant told Kelly Cole about the fertility clinic emails and linked them to the earlier whistleblower allegation.
-
Resignation of Patrick Healy
The claimant informed management that Patrick Healy was resigning due to toxic team dynamics.
-
First redundancy consultation meeting
The claimant was told his role was at risk due to a proposed restructure.
-
Second consultation meeting and grievance
The claimant presented a counter-proposal and raised a formal grievance alleging protected disclosure, race discrimination, and unfair dismissal.
-
Dismissal without final meeting
The claimant cancelled a meeting due to his mother's medical appointment; the employer dismissed him by email.
-
Appeal dismissed
Alyson Jackson upheld the dismissal after reviewing the process.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether his dismissal or detriment resulted from a protected disclosure.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy due to procedural unfairness. The employer failed to hold a final consultation meeting when the claimant could not attend because of his mother's medical appointment, instead dismissing him by email.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £0
- Compensatory award: £658.71
- Polkey reduction: 100% (the claimant would have been dismissed one day later if a fair process had been followed)
- Total: £658.71
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should always reschedule a final consultation meeting if the employee has a genuine reason for non-attendance, rather than dismissing by email.
- A Polkey reduction of 100% means the employee gets only a nominal award if they would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
- Protected disclosure claims require the disclosure to be in the public interest; personal grievances about harassment are unlikely to qualify.
- Length of service (here 4 years) can affect the reasonableness of the employer's response, but procedural fairness is still required.
What this case shows
This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in redundancy processes, even when the outcome seems inevitable. The senior vice-president had four years' service and was told his role was at risk after a restructure. The employer held two consultation meetings, but when the claimant had to cancel the final meeting due to his mother's medical appointment, the employer dismissed him by email without offering an alternative date.
The tribunal found this was procedurally unfair. However, they also found that if a fair process had been followed, the claimant would have been dismissed just one day later – a 100% Polkey reduction. This meant the compensation was limited to one day's pay: £658.71.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have simply rearranged the meeting. The tribunal noted that the claimant had a genuine reason for cancelling and had offered to reschedule. Instead, the employer pressed ahead with dismissal by email, which the tribunal described as a clear procedural failing. The employer also failed to properly consider alternative roles, though this was not the main focus of the claim.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that procedural fairness matters even when the substantive outcome is clear. Employees facing redundancy should ensure they attend all consultation meetings or provide good reasons for absence. Employers must not shortcut the process, even if they believe the decision is inevitable. The small compensation reflects the Polkey principle, but the finding of unfair dismissal still stands as a warning against procedural shortcuts.
Similar cases
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
CEO made redundant after protected disclosures: procedural unfairness in rejecting reduced-hours alternative
A CEO with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer rejected his proposed reduced-hours alternative without proper consideration. The tribunal found the redundancy process procedurally flawed but applied a 75% Polkey deduction.
18-year employee unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A Quality Lead with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Mitie Group Plc used flawed selection criteria and a perfunctory consultation process in a redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £46,933.64.
Procedurally unfair redundancy but no compensation: employee who rejected alternative role
A Principal Technical Author with 14 years' service won his unfair dismissal claim over a flawed redundancy process, but received no compensation because the tribunal found he would not have accepted any alternative role.