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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Research Scientist from 21 June 2011.
- The respondent decided to shift focus from R&D to scaled production, making the claimant's role redundant.
- The claimant was the only employee at risk of redundancy (pool of one).
- The respondent consulted with the claimant, considered alternatives, and offered suitable alternative roles which the claimant declined.
- The claimant was paid £6,300 redundancy and £10,194.48 as 12 weeks' notice.
- The tribunal found the respondent acted fairly and dismissed both claims.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant commenced employment as a Senior Research Scientist.
-
Redundancy warning
Respondent wrote to claimant advising of potential redundancy due to change in business strategy.
-
Consultation invitation
Respondent invited claimant to a first consultation meeting.
-
First consultation meeting
Meeting held to discuss redundancy risk, business change, and next steps.
-
Claimant's response
Claimant wrote to respondent disputing redundancy and requesting 12 weeks' notice.
-
Security investigation
Respondent initiated investigation into a potential security breach, pausing consultation.
-
Consultation resumed
Investigation concluded with no disciplinary action; redundancy process reinstated.
-
Final consultation meeting
Meeting held; alternatives considered but claimant unsuitable or unwilling to accept lower roles.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant's role made redundant; he received redundancy payment and notice pay.
-
Hearing day 1
Full merits hearing commenced via video.
-
Hearing day 2
Evidence and submissions concluded; judgment reserved.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed both unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted fairly in dismissing the claimant by reason of redundancy, including whether the pool of one was appropriate, consultation was adequate, and alternatives were properly considered, and whether the correct notice pay was paid.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent had a genuine business reason for redundancy (shift from R&D to production).
- The pool of one was appropriate as the claimant was the only employee in that role.
- The consultation process was fair, with multiple meetings and consideration of alternatives.
- The claimant was offered suitable alternative roles but declined them.
- Notice pay was correctly calculated and paid.
Compensation: None awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A 'pool of one' can be fair if the employee is the only one doing that role and the business reason is genuine.
- Employers should document consultation meetings and consider alternatives thoroughly to show fairness.
- Employees should engage constructively in consultation and consider suitable alternative roles to avoid dismissal.
- Notice pay must be calculated correctly; statutory minimum may apply if contractual terms are unclear.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates that a redundancy process can be fair even when only one employee is at risk. The employer, Surrey Nanosystems Limited, decided to shift its focus from research and development to scaled production, making the senior research scientist's role redundant. The tribunal accepted that the 'pool of one' was appropriate because the claimant was the only person carrying out that specific role. The employer consulted with the claimant over several weeks, considered alternatives, and offered suitable roles, which the claimant declined.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued that the consultation was inadequate and that the employer should have considered a wider pool. However, the tribunal found that the employer acted fairly. The claimant also disputed the amount of notice pay, but the tribunal confirmed the correct payment had been made. The claimant represented himself, which may have made it harder to present his case effectively.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision confirms that employers can use a narrow pool of one when the business case is clear and the role is unique. It also emphasises the importance of a genuine consultation process and consideration of alternatives. Employees facing redundancy should engage constructively and consider any suitable alternative roles offered, as declining them may weaken a subsequent claim.
Similar cases
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.
CCTV operatives made redundant: fair dismissal after consultation and alternative roles offered
Three long-serving CCTV operatives who refused to apply for ringfenced Community Guardian roles were fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal upheld the employer's consultation process and offer of alternative employment.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: employer's process found fair despite 57% salary cut offer
A Leeds tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from an associate director made redundant after his role was restructured. The judge found the employer's consultation and selection process was fair, even though the only alternative roles offered came with a salary cut from £70,000 to £30,000.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: how a small employer handled pandemic restructuring fairly
A Watford tribunal found that Flitetec Ltd fairly dismissed a senior sales account manager for redundancy after losing 70% of its revenue during the pandemic. The claim was dismissed.