Redundancy during restructuring: tribunal finds process fair despite unsuccessful alternative role applications
A Delivery Programme Manager who lost his job in a large-scale restructure at Raytheon Systems Ltd has failed to prove his redundancy was unfair. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation and a fair process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The respondent restructured its UK business under Project Genesis, identifying 429 jobs at risk of redundancy.
- The claimant's role as Delivery Programme Manager was one of 19 deleted roles in the SAS department, replaced by 8 new roles.
- The claimant was offered alternative roles and interviewed for three positions but was unsuccessful.
- The claimant was paid £9,186 gross in lieu of notice and an £8,160 redundancy payment.
- The tribunal found that a genuine redundancy situation existed and the process was procedurally fair.
Timeline
-
Project Genesis initiated
The respondent began a top-to-bottom review of its organisational structure to streamline and rationalise the workforce.
-
At-risk letter sent
The claimant received a letter informing him that his role was at risk of redundancy and outlining the redundancy process.
-
Collective consultation begins
A 45-day collective consultation period started, including meetings and election of employee representatives.
-
First interview for alternative role
The claimant interviewed for the Governance Programme Manager role but scored 40/60, below the successful candidate's 48.5.
-
Unsuccessful for first role
The claimant was informed he was unsuccessful for the Governance Programme Manager role.
-
Redundancy notice issued
The respondent sent a notice of redundancy to the claimant, with a ten-week notice period from 1 September to 12 November 2021.
-
Grievance initiated
Following a Zoom call, the claimant initiated the respondent's grievance procedure regarding the redundancy process.
-
Last day of employment
The claimant's employment ended. He received £9,186 gross in lieu of notice and an £8,160 redundancy payment.
-
Claim form submitted
The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy.
-
Hearing day 1
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions from both parties via CVP.
-
Judgment given
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal, finding a genuine redundancy situation and a fair procedure.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a genuine redundancy situation existed, whether the redundancy was procedurally fair, and if not, what adjustment to compensation should be made.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal.
- The tribunal found that Raytheon Systems Ltd had a genuine redundancy situation due to a major restructuring (Project Genesis) that eliminated 429 roles, including the claimant's.
- The selection process was based on objective criteria, and the claimant was given the opportunity to apply for alternative roles, though he was unsuccessful in three interviews.
- The consultation process was thorough, including collective consultation with employee representatives and individual meetings. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Lessons & takeaways
- Large-scale restructurings that eliminate specific roles are likely to be accepted as genuine redundancy situations.
- Offering alternative roles and conducting fair interviews can help demonstrate a fair process.
- Thorough consultation, both collective and individual, is key to defending a redundancy dismissal claim.
- Even if an employee is unsuccessful in securing alternative roles, the redundancy process can still be fair if objective criteria are used.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates that a large-scale business restructuring can be a genuine redundancy situation, even when new roles are created. The claimant, a Delivery Programme Manager, lost his job when his role was one of 19 deleted in a department that saw 8 new roles created. The tribunal accepted that the employer's decision to restructure was based on sound business reasons.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued that the selection criteria for alternative roles were not objective enough, but the tribunal disagreed. The key lesson for employees facing redundancy is that simply being unsuccessful in interviews for alternative roles does not make the process unfair, provided the employer uses objective criteria and gives proper consideration.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that tribunals will not second-guess an employer's business decision to restructure, as long as there is a genuine redundancy situation and a fair process is followed. Employees should focus on ensuring they receive proper consultation and fair consideration for alternative roles, rather than challenging the redundancy itself.
Similar cases
21-year assistant manager loses redundancy claim despite long service
An assistant manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring lower than a colleague on selection criteria. The tribunal upheld Boots' process.
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.
21-year teacher loses unfair dismissal claim after redundancy consultation
A Subject Leader with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed when her school restructured its EAL department. The tribunal found the consultation and consideration of alternative roles were reasonable.
Warehouse team leader loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy alternative role dispute
A warehouse team leader with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a misunderstanding over an alternative role offer, the tribunal has ruled.