Project Manager unfairly dismissed for redundancy without consultation: small company lessons
A project manager was unfairly dismissed when his small employer made him redundant without any warning, consultation or appeal. The tribunal awarded £2,650.83 after applying a 70% Polkey reduction.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #no-consultation
- #polkey-deduction
- #unauthorised-deductions
- #homeworking-during-pandemic
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Project Manager from February 2016 until dismissal on 23 June 2020.
- The respondent was a small business with about 18 employees and no HR advisor.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy without any prior warning, consultation, or right of appeal.
- The respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages for the period 23 March to 9 April 2020.
- The tribunal found a 70% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy if a fair process had been followed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the respondent as a Project Manager.
-
Verbal warning
The claimant received a verbal warning for poor performance.
-
Homeworking began
The respondent asked staff to work from home due to the pandemic, with furlough planned from 10 April.
-
Furlough started
The claimant was furloughed.
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended pending investigation into alleged abuse of homeworking protocols and misuse of company property.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, with no right of appeal.
-
Final hearing
The tribunal heard the case and found unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions.
-
Remedy hearing
The parties agreed remedy, resulting in a total award of £2,650.83.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal by reason of redundancy was unfair because the employer failed to follow any fair procedure, and whether unauthorised deductions from wages were made for a period of home working during the pandemic.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer, Land Science Limited, made the claimant redundant without any prior warning, consultation, or appeal process. The tribunal also found that the employer made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages for the period 23 March to 9 April 2020.
Compensation was agreed at a total of £2,650.83:
- Basic award: £0.00
- Compensatory award: £158.54 (after a 70% Polkey reduction)
- Unauthorised deductions: £2,492.29
Lessons & takeaways
- Even small employers without HR support must follow a fair redundancy process, including consultation and a right of appeal.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal thinks a fair process would still have led to dismissal.
- Unauthorised deductions from wages, even during pandemic home working, are unlawful and can be claimed separately.
- Length of service matters: the claimant had over four years' service, which entitled him to a fair process.
- Documenting performance concerns and warnings is important, but does not replace the need for a proper redundancy procedure.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks small employers face when making redundancies without following basic procedures. The claimant, a Project Manager, was dismissed by Land Science Limited, a company with about 18 employees and no HR advisor. The dismissal was by reason of redundancy, but there was no prior warning, no consultation, and no right of appeal. The tribunal found this was procedurally unfair, even for a small business.
The background included a verbal warning for poor performance and an investigation into alleged misconduct during home working. However, the employer chose to dismiss for redundancy instead, which the tribunal saw as a way to avoid proper process. The claimant had worked there since 2016, giving him over four years' service and the right to a fair procedure.
What the employer could have done differently
Land Science Limited could have avoided this claim by following a simple redundancy process: consulting with the employee, explaining the business reasons, considering alternatives, and offering a right of appeal. Even a small company can do this informally. The tribunal noted that the employer's failure was not due to malice but to a lack of understanding of employment law. The managing director represented the company in person, which may have contributed to the procedural gaps.
Why the result matters for similar claims
The tribunal applied a 70% Polkey reduction, meaning it found a 70% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed even if a proper process had been followed. This reduced the compensatory award to just £158.54. However, the claimant also succeeded in a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages for a period of home working during the pandemic, receiving £2,492.29. This shows that employees can bring multiple claims arising from the same dismissal.
For employees, this case is a reminder that even a flawed redundancy process can still lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, but compensation may be limited if the outcome would likely have been the same. For employers, it underscores the importance of basic procedural fairness, especially when dealing with long-serving staff.
Similar cases
Chef with 35 years' service dismissed without consultation when restaurant closed
A chef who worked for 35 years was made redundant without any consultation or notice when his restaurant closed. The tribunal awarded £17,766 in redundancy and notice pay, but reduced compensation for unfair dismissal by 100% because the business was bound to close.
Unfairly dismissed workshop technician awarded £1,350 after Polkey deduction
A workshop technician unfairly made redundant was awarded £1,350 compensation after the tribunal applied a 50% Polkey deduction for the chance he would have been dismissed in a fair process.
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.