Redundancy dismissal unfair after employer failed to interview for alternative role
Redundancy dismissal unfair after employer failed to interview for alternative role
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #redeployment
- #transferable-skills
- #policy-breach
- #interview-denied
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 23 March 2015 until 31 March 2020.
- The reason for dismissal was redundancy due to the end of funding for the CAPE project.
- The claimant applied for a Relationship Officer role but was not shortlisted based solely on his written application.
- The respondent did not inform the claimant of the essential criteria or that a paper sift would be used.
- The claimant was not given an interview or opportunity to discuss his transferable skills.
- The appeal was conducted after the post had already been filled.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an HR Business Partner.
-
Role change to Service Manager
Claimant transferred to Service Manager role leading projects for young people.
-
Role change to Project Lead for CAPE
Claimant became Project Lead for the CAPE programme, funded until 31 March 2020.
-
Redundancy consultation began
Claimant was placed at risk of redundancy along with his team.
-
Relationship Officer post identified
Claimant was alerted to the Relationship Officer vacancy on the internal portal.
-
Telephone conversation with Rob Dickinson
Claimant spoke to Rob Dickinson about the role but was not told about the paper sift process.
-
Redundancy notice issued
Claimant received formal redundancy notice from Helen Leadbitter.
-
Rejection for Relationship Officer role
Claimant received automated rejection letter stating his application did not meet essential criteria.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant met with Nikki Pawsey for appeal, but the post had already been filled.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended due to redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason to dismiss, specifically whether it took appropriate steps to seek to redeploy the claimant and followed its own Organisational Change Policy.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the employer failed to follow its own Redeployment Policy, which required that employees at risk of redundancy be interviewed for suitable alternative posts if they met the essential criteria. The claimant was not shortlisted for the Relationship Officer role based solely on his written application, without being told that a paper sift would be used or given an opportunity to discuss his transferable skills. The appeal was also conducted after the post had already been filled.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £0 (included in compensatory award)
- Compensatory award: £42,470.48
- Polkey reduction: 20%
- Total: £42,870.48
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow their own redeployment policies when considering at-risk employees for alternative roles.
- If a policy requires an interview, a paper sift alone may not be sufficient, especially if the employee is not told about the process.
- Employees should be given a genuine opportunity to demonstrate transferable skills for roles they apply for during redundancy.
- Appeals against redundancy decisions should be conducted before the alternative role is filled, not after.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible but having legal representation can help navigate complex procedural issues.
When redundancy process fails to consider redeployment properly
This case highlights the importance of following internal policies during redundancy, particularly when it comes to redeployment. The claimant, a project lead with five years' service, was made redundant after his project's funding ended. He applied for a Relationship Officer role within the same organisation, believing his skills were transferable. However, the employer shortlisted candidates based solely on written applications, without informing him that a paper sift would be used or giving him an interview. The tribunal found this breached the employer's own Redeployment Policy, which required an interview for at-risk employees who met the essential criteria.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by simply following its policy. It should have informed the claimant about the selection process, assessed his application against the essential criteria transparently, and offered him an interview as the policy required. Even if the claimant was not the strongest candidate, an interview would have demonstrated that he was given genuine preferential consideration. Additionally, the appeal process was flawed because the role had already been filled by the time the appeal was heard, making any reconsideration meaningless.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy does not automatically make a dismissal fair. Employers must take reasonable steps to redeploy employees, especially when they have a policy promising preferential treatment. For employees facing redundancy, it is worth checking whether the employer has a redeployment policy and whether it was followed. If not, a claim for unfair dismissal may succeed, even if the redundancy itself was genuine. The compensation here reflects the loss of earnings and benefits, reduced by 20% for the chance that the claimant might not have been appointed even if properly considered.
Similar cases
20-year manager dismissed for capability after employer refused to adjust role for disability
A Global Governance Risk and Compliance Manager with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after GlaxoSmithKline failed to make reasonable adjustments for her hand disability. The tribunal awarded £24,785 for injury to feelings.
Redundancy without process: food sales assistant awarded £12,651 after unfair dismissal
A food sales assistant dismissed by a butchers that went into liquidation has won £12,651 for unfair dismissal, redundancy and wrongful dismissal after the tribunal found the employer failed to follow proper procedures.
22-year employee unfairly dismissed after Boots failed to consider redeployment
A customer adviser with 22 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Boots after a redundancy exercise that failed to properly explore alternative roles. The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but dismissed race-related complaints.
Gymnastics coach awarded £2,230 after redundancy dismissal without consultation
A gymnastics coach who was dismissed by email with immediate effect citing redundancy was awarded £2,230 for unauthorised wage deductions and failure to provide written particulars. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair.