Sports club managers dismissed without consultation: redundancy ruled unfair
Two joint managers of a sports club were unfairly dismissed when they were made redundant without any consultation, despite the club's dire financial situation. The tribunal also found they were owed unpaid wages and holiday pay.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The Claimants were employed as joint managers of a sports club from April 2015 until 19 August 2020.
- They were paid a combined salary of £30,000 per year, which was below the National Minimum Wage for the hours worked.
- The Claimants made protected disclosures about misuse of grant funds and suspicious financial transactions.
- The Club was in severe financial difficulty and had virtually no funds by August 2020.
- The Claimants were dismissed without any prior consultation or warning.
- The Tribunal found the dismissals were unfair due to lack of consultation, but the principal reason was redundancy, not whistleblowing.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The Claimants started working as joint managers of Ilford Sports Club.
-
First protected disclosure
The Claimants disclosed that £10,000 lottery grant money for the Ageless Teenagers project was misused by George Hogarth.
-
Second protected disclosure
The Claimants disclosed suspicious transactions between the Club and Camdon Boiler company, believed to be a false impression of financial health.
-
Third protected disclosure
The Claimants disclosed that EU public funding was not used for specified purposes.
-
Board meeting with disclosures
The Claimants repeated their protected disclosures at a Board meeting, leading to a vote of no confidence in Mr Hogarth and Mr Chilvers.
-
National lockdown and furlough
The Club closed due to COVID-19 and the Claimants were furloughed, receiving 80% of their contractual pay.
-
Board decision to dismiss
The Board voted to make the Claimants redundant due to the Club's dire financial situation, with no consultation.
-
Dismissal notified
The Claimants were informed by email that their posts were redundant and given 4 weeks' notice.
-
Appeal lodged
The Claimants appealed the redundancy decision.
-
Claim presented
The Claimants presented their claims to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissals were unfair due to lack of consultation, and whether the reason was redundancy or automatically unfair because of protected disclosures or asserting a statutory right.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the managers were unfairly dismissed. The principal reason was redundancy, not whistleblowing, but the club's failure to consult made the dismissal unfair.
Compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing, but the tribunal made a Polkey finding that the managers would have been fairly dismissed by 15 October 2020 in any event. The following claims also succeeded:
- Unpaid wages for 1-19 August 2020
- Unpaid notice pay
- Accrued holiday pay (18 days each)
- Breach of duty to provide written employment particulars (2 weeks' pay each)
Lessons & takeaways
- Even in a genuine redundancy situation, employers must consult with employees before dismissing them, or the dismissal will be unfair.
- Making protected disclosures does not automatically make a dismissal automatically unfair if the principal reason is something else, like redundancy.
- Claims for unlawful deductions from wages must be brought within three months of the deduction, or they may be out of time.
- Employers must ensure they pay at least the National Minimum Wage, or face claims for unlawful deductions.
This case shows what can happen when a struggling employer tries to cut costs by making staff redundant without following proper procedure. The two joint managers of Ilford Sports Club had worked there for over five years, managing the club's day-to-day operations. When the club ran into severe financial difficulties during the pandemic, the board decided to make them redundant – but they did so without any warning or consultation.
What went wrong
The club's financial situation was genuinely dire, and the tribunal accepted that redundancy was the real reason for the dismissals. However, the law requires employers to consult with employees before making them redundant, even when the business is in trouble. The club failed to do this, and the dismissals were therefore unfair. The tribunal also found that the club had underpaid the managers, who were working long hours for a salary that fell below the National Minimum Wage, and had not paid them for their final weeks of work or their notice period.
What the club could have done differently
If the club had consulted with the managers before deciding to dismiss them, it might have been able to show that the dismissals were fair. For example, it could have discussed alternative roles or a phased redundancy process. The tribunal noted that the managers had raised concerns about financial mismanagement, which might have prompted the club to act more carefully. Instead, the lack of consultation meant the dismissals were automatically unfair, and the club now faces a compensation hearing.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even in a genuine redundancy situation, employers must follow a fair process. Employees who are dismissed without consultation may have a claim for unfair dismissal, regardless of the employer's financial difficulties. It also highlights the importance of keeping records of hours worked and ensuring that pay meets the National Minimum Wage, as failing to do so can lead to additional claims for unlawful deductions.
Similar cases
TUPE transfer meant employer was not liable for constructive dismissal
Two employees who claimed constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal against Britannia Driving School Ltd had their claims dismissed after the tribunal found a TUPE transfer had already moved their employment to another company.
Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
Dismissed for redundancy after divorce talks: a hidden reason for unfair dismissal
A book-keeper and administrator was unfairly dismissed after her employer used redundancy as a pretext to end her employment following the breakdown of divorce settlement negotiations. The tribunal awarded £8,922.50.
Pub manager dismissed during pandemic wins £18,000 for unpaid wages and holiday pay
A public house manager with 17 years' service was made redundant when the pub closed during COVID-19. The tribunal upheld the redundancy but awarded £17,936.55 for National Minimum Wage underpayments, notice pay, and holiday pay.