23 years' service, pool of one, pandemic redundancy: decision upheld
A quality and compliance manager with 23 years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after being made redundant in a pool of one during the pandemic. The tribunal found the process was fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #pandemic-downturn
- #pool-of-one
- #alternative-employment
- #appeal-process
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as quality and compliance manager from 1 April 1997 to 3 December 2020.
- The respondent suffered a downturn in business due to the pandemic, leading to 120 redundancies.
- The claimant's role was carried out by others during furlough from March to August 2020.
- The respondent decided the claimant's role was unique and placed him in a pool of one.
- The claimant was consulted twice and given an opportunity to appeal, which was unsuccessful.
- A new quality and compliance consultant role was created after the claimant's dismissal, but it was not materially similar.
Timeline
-
Claimant furloughed
The claimant was placed on furlough as part of cost-saving measures due to the pandemic.
-
CEO letter to employees
The respondent's CEO informed employees of the need for cost savings and potential redundancies.
-
Warning of redundancies
The CEO wrote to employees warning of redundancies and an announcement on 11 August.
-
Redundancy announcement and claimant informed
The respondent announced 120 redundancies; Mr Yorke told the claimant his role was at risk.
-
First consultation meeting
Mr Yorke met with the claimant to discuss the redundancy and alternatives; the claimant had no suggestions.
-
Second consultation meeting
Mr Yorke confirmed the redundancy decision after the claimant raised no further alternatives.
-
Notice of dismissal
Mr Yorke wrote to the claimant giving notice of termination due to redundancy, effective 4 December 2020.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Recci heard the claimant's appeal, which included allegations of age discrimination.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Recci informed the claimant that his appeal was unsuccessful.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (redundancy) and whether the employer acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient to dismiss.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint.
Key reasons:
- The respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to the pandemic downturn.
- Placing the claimant in a pool of one was reasonable because his role was unique.
- The consultation process, though brief, was adequate; the claimant had opportunities to suggest alternatives but did not.
- The appeal process was fair and impartial.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can use a pool of one if the role is genuinely unique and no other employees carry out similar work.
- A brief consultation can still be fair if the employee is given a genuine opportunity to suggest alternatives.
- Length of service does not automatically make a redundancy unfair if the business need is genuine and the process is reasonable.
- An appeal process conducted by a different manager can satisfy the requirement for impartiality even if that manager had prior knowledge of the case.
This case shows how a redundancy dismissal can be fair even when it involves a long-serving employee placed in a pool of one. The claimant, a quality and compliance manager with 23 years of service, was made redundant after the pandemic caused a severe downturn in the respondent's business. The respondent had already made 120 redundancies across the organisation.
What the employer did right
The respondent identified a genuine redundancy situation and considered alternative roles, but none were suitable. The claimant was consulted twice and given the chance to propose alternatives, which he did not. The appeal was heard by a different manager who, despite some prior involvement, was found to have acted impartially. The tribunal noted that the respondent's process, while not perfect, fell within the range of reasonable responses.
What the claimant argued
The claimant argued that his role was not redundant because a new quality and compliance consultant role was created after his dismissal. However, the tribunal found that role was not materially similar to his old one. He also argued that the pool should have included the Business Assurance Team, but the tribunal accepted that his role was unique and a pool of one was appropriate.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look at the overall fairness of the process, not just the outcome. Even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed if the employer has a genuine business reason and follows a reasonable procedure. For employees facing redundancy, it is important to engage fully in consultation and suggest alternatives, as failing to do so can weaken a later claim.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection scoring upheld: fair process and consultation saved the day
A Heating Sales Advisor with five years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after a tribunal found that British Gas Services Limited followed a fair redundancy process, including collective consultation, objective scoring, and a proper appeal.
Redundancy dismissal of senior scientist: pool of one and consultation found fair
A senior research scientist with 11 years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after his employer restructured. The tribunal found the redundancy process, including a pool of one, was fair.
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.
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.