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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Regional Sales Director from 14 December 2004.
- The respondent initiated redundancy consultation in April 2020 due to Covid-19 and financial difficulties.
- The claimant did not consent to furlough and requested bonus information, which the respondent misunderstood.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on 28 April 2020 for redundancy without proper consultation.
- The appeal hearing was procedurally flawed; the appeal officer lacked key documents and awareness of fair process.
- The role of Regional Sales Director has not been replaced over two years later.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant's continuity of employment began.
-
Business acquisition
Respondent purchased claimant's business; claimant became Regional Sales Director.
-
Exit discussion initiated
Group Sales Director emailed HR to plan exit of claimant due to poor financial performance.
-
UK lockdown
First national lockdown announced due to Covid-19.
-
Furlough selection
Claimant informed by phone that he was selected for furlough; he did not consent.
-
Claimant asserts statutory rights
Claimant emailed respondent stating he did not consent to furlough and that it would be an unlawful deduction.
-
Redundancy threat
Respondent warned claimant that if furlough not accepted, redundancy would follow.
-
Claimant agrees to furlough in principle
Claimant agreed to furlough subject to bonus information; respondent continued redundancy process.
-
Dismissal
Respondent gave notice of termination on grounds of redundancy.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Liability hearing
Tribunal heard evidence on liability and Polkey.
-
Liability judgment
Employment Judge Bennett found dismissal unfair, with 90% Polkey deduction.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded £34,295.30 compensatory award, no basic award.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was automatically unfair for asserting a statutory right (refusing furlough) or otherwise unfair under the ordinary unfair dismissal provisions, and what reduction should apply for the chance that a fair process would still have led to dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to inadequate consultation and a flawed appeal process. The employer had decided on redundancy before proper consultation and the appeal officer lacked key documents. However, the tribunal applied a 90% Polkey reduction, meaning the claimant would likely have been dismissed even with a fair process. The compensatory award was £34,295.30, with no basic award as the claimant had not accrued the necessary two years' service for a basic award (though he had 16 years' service, the basic award was zero due to the cap on the compensatory award).
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct genuine redundancy consultation, not just go through the motions, especially when the employee has long service.
- Refusing furlough does not automatically make a dismissal unfair; the tribunal will look at the real reason for dismissal.
- A flawed appeal process can make an otherwise fair dismissal unfair, so appeals must be thorough and impartial.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, a Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway.
- Employees should document all communications about redundancy and furlough to protect their rights.
A case of rushed redundancy during the pandemic
This case shows how easily redundancy procedures can go wrong when employers are under pressure. The claimant, a Regional Sales Director with 16 years' service, was dismissed for redundancy just weeks after the first Covid lockdown. The employer, Hadley Steel Framing Limited, had already decided to make him redundant before any proper consultation took place.
The tribunal found that the consultation was a sham. The employer had been planning the claimant's exit since February 2020, before the pandemic hit. When the claimant refused to consent to furlough, the employer used this as a reason to accelerate the redundancy process. The appeal was also flawed: the appeal officer did not have key documents and was not aware of the need for a fair process.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by following basic redundancy procedures. They should have consulted properly, considered alternatives to redundancy, and ensured the appeal was conducted fairly. Instead, they rushed the process and ignored the claimant's requests for information about his bonus.
The tribunal applied a 90% Polkey reduction because it found that even with a fair process, the claimant would likely have been dismissed. This is a reminder that procedural unfairness does not always lead to a large payout if the outcome would have been the same.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of genuine consultation, even in a crisis. Employers cannot use the pandemic as an excuse to bypass fair procedures. For employees, it shows that refusing furlough does not automatically protect you from redundancy, but it can trigger unfair dismissal if the employer mishandles the process.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Personal assistants made redundant after care needs changed: unfair dismissal claims fail
Two personal assistants lost their unfair dismissal claims after a tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation when their employer's care needs changed. They were awarded notice pay of £156.
Architectural assistant dismissed without consultation: procedural unfairness but no compensation
An architectural assistant with six years' service was made redundant without any prior consultation. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but awarded no compensation because redundancy was inevitable.