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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #consultation-process
- #alternative-employment
- #salary-reduction
- #sickness-during-process
Key facts
- Claimant was employed as associate director/senior project manager and quantity surveyor from 16 November 2016.
- Respondent restructured the quantity surveyor department, proposing to replace claimant's role with a trainee position.
- Claimant was offered a trainee role and a business development role, both at £30,000 salary compared to his £70,000 salary.
- Claimant was scored against a matrix and was unsuccessful for the trainee role; he did not accept the business development role.
- Claimant's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy on 5 January 2022.
- The tribunal found that redundancy was the real reason for dismissal and the process was fair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as associate director/senior project manager and quantity surveyor.
-
Redundancy notification
Claimant was notified of proposed restructuring and that his role was at risk of redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
Meeting with managing director Christopher Lee; claimant was offered trainee and business development roles.
-
Claimant off sick
Claimant went off work with non-specific illness and later anxiety until about 30 September 2021.
-
Application deadline set
Claimant asked to apply for trainee post by 13 August 2021.
-
Scoring questions sent
Respondent sent questions to assist in scoring process, deadline 3 September 2021.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant was asked about his score; he said 'No comment' and felt process unfair; meeting adjourned.
-
Score increased
Claimant's representations led to an increase in his score.
-
Final consultation meeting
Claimant informed he was unsuccessful for trainee role; business development role still open.
-
Redundancy confirmed
Claimant's redundancy confirmed with notice expiring 5 January 2022; appeal right given.
-
Appeal hearing part 1
First part of appeal hearing.
-
Appeal hearing part 2
Second part of appeal hearing; appeal unsuccessful.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy.
-
Claims issued
Claimant issued claims for breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages.
-
Hearing day 1
Substantive hearing before Employment Judge Shulman in Leeds.
-
Hearing day 2
Substantive hearing continued.
-
Judgment sent
Reserved judgment dismissing unfair dismissal claim; other claims withdrawn.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and, if so, whether the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant argued the redundancy was a sham and the real reason was something else.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
- The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to a restructuring of the quantity surveyor department.
- The consultation process was adequate: the claimant was informed, offered alternative roles, scored against a matrix, and given an appeal.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed entirely.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can restructure roles and offer lower-paid alternatives without automatically making a dismissal unfair, provided the process is genuine and consultative.
- Claimants who refuse suitable alternative employment may find their redundancy dismissal upheld if the employer's selection criteria and consultation are reasonable.
- Being off sick during a redundancy process does not automatically make the dismissal unfair if the employer continues to engage and allows participation where possible.
When a salary drop doesn't mean unfair dismissal
This case shows that a significant reduction in salary offered as an alternative to redundancy does not, by itself, make a dismissal unfair. The associate director had earned £70,000 but was offered roles at £30,000. He declined both. The tribunal accepted that the employer had genuine business reasons for restructuring and had followed a fair process.
What the employer did right
Lucas Lee Ltd notified the claimant early, held multiple consultation meetings, offered two alternative roles, used a scoring matrix for the trainee position, and provided an appeal. Even when the claimant was off sick, the employer continued the process and adjusted deadlines. The tribunal noted that the claimant's score was increased after his representations, showing the process was not a sham.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employees facing redundancy with a large pay cut may feel the process is unfair, but tribunals focus on the fairness of the procedure rather than the financial outcome. The key is whether the employer genuinely consulted, considered alternatives, and applied objective criteria. Here, the claimant's refusal to accept the business development role and his lack of engagement in the scoring process weakened his case.
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 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.
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.