Warehouse team leader loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy alternative role dispute
A warehouse team leader with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a misunderstanding over an alternative role offer, the tribunal has ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #consultation
- #alternative-employment
- #procedural-fairness
- #appeal
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 16 November 2022.
- The respondent conducted a consultation process and applied objective selection criteria.
- Two alternative Team Leader roles became available during the consultation.
- The claimant believed he was offered and accepted the Day Shift Team Leader role on 9 November 2022, but the offer was later retracted.
- The claimant was offered the Late Shift Team Leader role but declined due to unsociable hours.
- The appeal process was thorough and the dismissal was upheld.
Timeline
-
Employment start date
The claimant began working for the respondent as a Warehouse Team Leader at the Dagenham site.
-
Redundancy announcement
The respondent announced proposed redundancies due to a reduction in work after Brexit.
-
First consultation meeting
Mr Hay met with the claimant to discuss the business case and consultation process.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant was informed he scored 7 out of 19 points; later raised to 9 after considering additional certifications.
-
Third consultation meeting (morning)
Mr Thompson met with the claimant; the claimant believed he was offered and accepted the Day Shift Team Leader role.
-
Second meeting (afternoon)
Mr Thompson clarified that the colleague would have first choice of the alternative roles.
-
Further consultation meeting
The claimant was offered the Late Shift Team Leader role but declined due to family reasons.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy after a final consultation meeting.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed against his dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Booth chaired the appeal hearing and conducted an investigation.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Booth dismissed the appeal, finding the process fair.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was offered and accepted an alternative role that was then unfairly revoked, and whether the redundancy process as a whole was procedurally fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal, finding that the redundancy process was fair and the claimant was not offered the Day Shift Team Leader role as he believed.
Key reasons:
- The respondent had a genuine redundancy situation and conducted a consultation process with objective scoring.
- The claimant's belief that he was offered the Day Shift role was a misunderstanding; the respondent clarified the position the same day.
- The alternative Late Shift role offered was suitable but the claimant declined it.
- The appeal process was thorough and upheld the dismissal.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Keep a written record of any offers of alternative roles during redundancy consultations to avoid misunderstandings.
- If you believe you have been offered a role, confirm it in writing immediately and ask for written confirmation.
- A thorough appeal process can help demonstrate that a redundancy dismissal was fair, even if the employee disputes the facts.
- Declining a suitable alternative role may weaken an unfair dismissal claim, as the employer may have done enough to avoid redundancy.
A misunderstanding over an alternative role
This case shows how a misunderstanding during a redundancy consultation can lead to a claim, even when the employer has acted reasonably. The claimant, a warehouse team leader with 9 years' service, believed he had been offered and accepted the Day Shift Team Leader role in a meeting on 9 November 2022. However, the employer clarified later that same day that the role had not been formally offered, as another colleague had priority. The tribunal found that no firm offer was made, and the claimant's belief was a genuine but mistaken interpretation of the conversation.
What the employer did right
Kuehne + Nagel Limited had a genuine redundancy situation following Brexit-related work reductions. They conducted a consultation process, applied objective selection criteria, and considered alternative roles. When the claimant declined the Late Shift Team Leader role due to unsociable hours, they proceeded with dismissal. The appeal was handled by a different manager who investigated the claimant's concerns and found the process fair. The tribunal noted that the employer's actions fell within the range of reasonable responses expected of a reasonable employer.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant represented himself and relied on his own account of the meeting. However, the contemporaneous note of the meeting did not record an offer, and the employer's witness gave a consistent account. If the claimant had sought written confirmation of the alleged offer at the time, he might have had stronger evidence. Additionally, accepting the Late Shift role, even temporarily, could have preserved his employment while he sought alternative arrangements.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look at the overall fairness of the redundancy process, not just one disputed conversation. Employers who follow a proper consultation process, consider alternatives, and conduct a thorough appeal are likely to defend claims successfully. For employees, it highlights the importance of clear communication and documentation during redundancy consultations.
Similar cases
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.
21-year assistant manager loses redundancy claim despite long service
An assistant manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring lower than a colleague on selection criteria. The tribunal upheld Boots' process.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: fair process despite pandemic pressures
A tribunal has ruled that a storekeeper's redundancy dismissal was fair, finding that the employer followed a reasonable selection process and consulted properly during the pandemic.
Redundancy during restructuring: tribunal finds process fair despite unsuccessful alternative role applications
A Delivery Programme Manager who lost his job in a large-scale restructure at Raytheon Systems Ltd has failed to prove his redundancy was unfair. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation and a fair process.