Site manager dismissed after failed trial period: redundancy process upheld
A site manager with two years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a trial period in a lower-paid role was deemed unsuccessful. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Site Manager from 5 October 2020 until 10 January 2023.
- The respondent made the Site Manager role redundant due to financial pressures and restructuring.
- The claimant was offered and accepted a trial period as Assistant Site Manager at £45,000.
- The trial period was deemed unsuccessful and no other suitable alternative roles were available.
- The claimant did not attend the final hearing and the tribunal proceeded in his absence.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Site Manager for the respondent.
-
At risk meeting
Claimant and three other Site Managers were told their roles were at risk of redundancy due to financial review.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant attended a consultation meeting where the business case for redundancy was explained.
-
Final consultation meeting
Claimant was offered the role of Assistant Site Manager at £45,000.
-
Offer accepted
Claimant accepted the offer of Assistant Site Manager, subject to a 4-week trial period.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance about being called lazy and appealed the demotion.
-
Trial period extended
Respondent extended the trial period due to claimant's absence of 8 days.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy after trial period deemed unsuccessful.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant attended an appeal hearing, arguing his role was being done by others.
-
Appeal dismissed
Claimant was informed his appeal was unsuccessful.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for redundancy was fair, focusing on the adequacy of consultation, selection, and the employer's efforts to find alternative employment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that the redundancy was fair.
Key reasons:
- The employer properly consulted and warned the claimant about the redundancy.
- A suitable alternative role (Assistant Site Manager) was offered and accepted, but the trial period was unsuccessful due to the claimant's absence and performance issues.
- No other suitable vacancies were available.
- The employer's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should offer a trial period for alternative roles and clearly communicate expectations.
- Employees who accept a trial period must actively participate and attend work to demonstrate suitability.
- A fair redundancy process includes proper consultation, objective selection, and genuine consideration of alternatives.
- Failing to attend a tribunal hearing can severely weaken your case, as the judge proceeds in your absence.
Redundancy process under scrutiny
This case shows how tribunals assess the fairness of a redundancy dismissal, especially when an employee is offered a trial period in a different role. The claimant, a site manager with two years' service, was made redundant after a financial review led to the deletion of his role. The employer, GreenSquareAccord Limited, consulted with him and offered a lower-paid Assistant Site Manager role at £45,000, which he accepted subject to a four-week trial.
What went wrong for the claimant
The trial period was extended due to the claimant's eight-day absence, and ultimately deemed unsuccessful. The claimant raised a grievance about being called lazy and appealed the demotion, but the employer found no suitable alternatives. The tribunal noted that the employer had acted reasonably throughout: they warned and consulted, offered alternative employment, and only dismissed after the trial failed. The claimant did not attend the final hearing, which further weakened his case.
Key takeaways for similar claims
This decision reinforces that employers can fairly dismiss for redundancy if they follow a proper process. For employees, accepting a trial period means you must engage fully and attend work. If you have concerns, raise them through proper channels, but non-attendance at a tribunal hearing can be fatal to your claim. The outcome also highlights that tribunals give employers a degree of flexibility in redundancy situations, as long as their actions fall within the range of reasonable responses.
Similar cases
Claims dismissed after claimants fail to attend final hearing
Two former employees who brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and redundancy had their cases thrown out after failing to attend the final hearing or provide any evidence.
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.
Redundancy dismissal upheld after employee refused selection interviews
A Client Account Manager with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after refusing to attend selection interviews and declining an alternative role. The tribunal upheld the dismissal by a majority, finding the redundancy genuine and the process reasonable.
21-year teacher loses unfair dismissal claim after redundancy consultation
A Subject Leader with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed when her school restructured its EAL department. The tribunal found the consultation and consideration of alternative roles were reasonable.