Redundancy used as pretext to dismiss underperforming operations manager
An operations manager who was dismissed for 'redundancy' that was actually a pretext for performance concerns has won his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded £2,020 in compensation.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-pretext
- #depression
- #back-condition
- #grievance
- #protected-conversation
- #polkey-not-applied
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Operations Manager from 8 January 2018 until 20 April 2021.
- The respondent decided to dismiss the claimant between August and November 2020 due to perceived underperformance and impact on workplace relationships.
- The respondent used a redundancy process as a mechanism to dismiss the claimant, but the real reason was not redundancy.
- The claimant suffered from depression and a back condition, but the tribunal found he was not disabled under the Equality Act.
- The claimant's grievance about bullying was not properly investigated, and the respondent encouraged him to raise it to show it had been dealt with.
- The claimant obtained alternative employment but resigned from one role due to performance issues unrelated to the respondent.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started work as Operations Manager for AGTC Ltd.
-
Back injury
Claimant suffered a back injury requiring surgery on 17 August 2019.
-
WhatsApp messages
Catherine Forbes Taylor sent messages about the claimant in a group chat, leading to a grievance.
-
EOS meeting
Mr Cutler said the claimant lacked skills for Head of Operations role, shocking the claimant.
-
Depression diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with depressive disorder and prescribed medication.
-
Performance criticism
Mr Cutler told the claimant he had 'switched off' during a team meeting.
-
Internal emails about dismissal
Ms Waszak, Mr Cutler, Mr Corr and Mr Gilbourne discussed ways to dismiss the claimant lawfully.
-
Formal grievance
Claimant submitted a written grievance about how his earlier complaint was handled.
-
Redundancy consultation started
Claimant told he was at risk of redundancy.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy with immediate effect.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed when his employer used a redundancy process as a pretext to dismiss him for reasons related to performance and conduct, and whether he was disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim for unfair dismissal, finding that the redundancy was not the real reason for dismissal. The employer had already decided to dismiss the claimant before starting the redundancy process, and the procedure was unfair.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £1,632.00
- Compensatory award: £388.37
- Total: £2,020.37
The tribunal did not apply a Polkey reduction or find contributory fault, as the dismissal was procedurally unfair and the real reason was not redundancy.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers cannot use redundancy as a cover for dismissing an employee for performance or conduct issues without following a fair process.
- Internal emails discussing how to lawfully dismiss an employee can be used as evidence that the redundancy was a pretext.
- A grievance about bullying should be properly investigated, even if the employer believes it is unfounded.
- The length of service (here 3 years) is a factor in assessing whether the employer acted reasonably, but does not prevent a finding of unfair dismissal if the process is a sham.
When redundancy is a pretext for performance dismissal
This case shows what happens when an employer decides to dismiss an employee for performance and relationship issues but uses a redundancy process as a convenient mechanism. The operations manager had been employed for just over three years when his line manager began expressing dissatisfaction with his performance and communication style. Internal emails revealed that senior managers were discussing how to dismiss him lawfully months before any redundancy consultation began.
The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was not redundancy but a combination of perceived underperformance and the claimant's impact on workplace relationships. The redundancy process was described as a 'sham' because the decision to dismiss had already been made. The employer also failed to properly investigate the claimant's grievance about bullying, which further undermined the fairness of the process.
What the employer could have done differently
If the employer had genuine concerns about performance, it should have followed a proper capability or conduct procedure, giving the employee a chance to improve. Instead, by using redundancy as a pretext, the employer not only acted unfairly but also lost the ability to rely on any performance-related defence. The tribunal also noted that the employer encouraged the claimant to raise a grievance but then did not investigate it properly, which added to the procedural unfairness.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look behind the stated reason for dismissal to determine the real reason. Employees who suspect they have been dismissed for a reason other than redundancy should gather evidence, such as emails or notes of conversations, that show the employer's true intentions. The fact that the claimant was not disabled under the Equality Act meant his discrimination claims failed, but the unfair dismissal claim succeeded on the basis of the sham redundancy process. The compensation was relatively low because the claimant had only three years' service and quickly found alternative work, but the principle remains important.
Similar cases
Prison Service driver loses disability discrimination claim after misconduct dismissal
A prison service driver who claimed he was deterred from raising a grievance and then dismissed due to his depression has lost his disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found no evidence of discrimination.
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.
Short-service engineer loses unfair dismissal claim but wins holiday pay
A static maintenance engineer with under two years' service could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal awarded £803.88 in unpaid holiday pay.