Accountant made redundant: tribunal finds Mandarin requirement was a device to justify dismissal
An accountant with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer merged her role and hired a cheaper replacement. The tribunal found the requirement for Mandarin was a sham.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #polkey-reduction
- #consultation-failure
- #suitable-alternative-employment
- #mandarin-requirement
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an accountant from 10 March 2016 until 20 August 2019.
- The respondent decided to merge the claimant's role with the office manager/HR officer role into one combined role.
- The claimant was dismissed without meaningful consultation or consideration for the combined role.
- The respondent hired a replacement who was paid £30,000, significantly less than the claimant's £46,000 salary.
- The tribunal found the respondent's requirement for Mandarin was a device to justify dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as an accountant for the respondent.
-
Initial meeting with managing director
Claimant was told her role was being made redundant and a replacement had already been found.
-
Meeting with HR consultant
Claimant attended a meeting with an external HR consultant, which the respondent called a redundancy consultation.
-
Final consultation meeting
Claimant met with Mr Ji; the respondent offered the combined role to Julie, who accepted.
-
Replacement started work
Julie began work; claimant's dismissal was confirmed.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's last day of employment.
-
New employment started
Claimant obtained alternative employment as an accountant, which ended in January 2020.
-
Second new employment started
Claimant commenced work for current employers at a higher salary.
-
Full merits hearing day 1
Tribunal heard evidence from claimant and respondent witnesses.
-
Full merits hearing day 2
Tribunal concluded hearing and reserved judgment.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found claimant unfairly dismissed; Polkey reduction set at 50%.
-
Reconsideration hearing
Tribunal reduced Polkey reduction from 50% to 40%.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy and, if so, what compensation was appropriate, including the percentage chance she would have retained employment under a fair procedure.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The redundancy process was a sham: the decision to dismiss was made before any consultation, and the requirement for Mandarin was a device to justify the dismissal.
Compensation was reduced by 40% (Polkey reduction) to reflect the chance that she would have been fairly dismissed even with a proper process.
- Basic award: £1,575 (offset by redundancy payment)
- Compensatory award: £7,442.91 (after Polkey reduction and mitigation)
- Total award: £9,824.14
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are told your role is redundant and a replacement has already been found before any consultation, that is a strong sign the process is unfair.
- Employers cannot invent job requirements (like a language skill) after the fact to justify a dismissal.
- Even if a redundancy situation exists, the employer must still consult meaningfully and consider suitable alternative employment.
- A Polkey reduction means the tribunal estimates the chance you would have been dismissed anyway under a fair process; here it was 40%.
This case shows how a redundancy process can be a sham when the employer has already made up its mind. The accountant was called into a meeting and told her role was being made redundant and a replacement had already been found. The so-called consultation that followed was meaningless: the decision had already been taken.
The employer later claimed that the combined role required Mandarin, but the tribunal found this was a device to justify the dismissal. The claimant had never needed Mandarin before, and all her communications with Chinese colleagues were in English. The replacement was hired at a significantly lower salary, which undermined the redundancy rationale.
What the employer could have done differently
A fair process would have involved genuine consultation, considering the claimant for the combined role, and not inventing a language requirement. The employer could have saved itself the tribunal claim by following basic redundancy procedures.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look behind the stated reason for redundancy. If the evidence suggests the employer was simply trying to replace a higher-paid employee with a cheaper one, the dismissal will be unfair. The Polkey reduction of 40% reflects that even with a fair process, there was a chance the claimant would still have been dismissed, but the core finding of unfairness stands.
Similar cases
Part-time worker dismissed for redundancy without consultation: unfair dismissal but no discrimination
A part-time Operations Assistant with Long Covid was unfairly dismissed when her employer decided to make her redundant before any consultation. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but applied a 60% Polkey reduction.
Operations manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation
A Newcastle tribunal found that Angel of Corbridge Ltd unfairly dismissed an operations manager with 17 years' service by failing to disclose the selection matrix and not considering a suitable alternative role. She was awarded £12,799.
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
Redundancy dismissal upheld despite disability: Institute of Physics wins tribunal case
A Digital Delivery Manager with multiple sclerosis was fairly dismissed for redundancy, the tribunal ruled, finding a genuine redundancy situation and fair process despite disability discrimination claims.