Redundancy during COVID-19: fair process and genuine restructure saved the employer
A Planning and Business Development Manager with over 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a genuine restructure and thorough consultation process. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #covid-19
- #redeployment
- #scoring-process
- #grievance-appeal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Planning and Business Development Manager.
- The respondent restructured due to a downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The claimant's role was made redundant and he applied for 11 alternative roles but was unsuccessful.
- The claimant scored a 4 on a role-specific question for the Resource Management Planning Executive role, making him unappointable.
- The claimant did not appeal the scoring but raised a grievance which was not upheld at first instance but was thoroughly reviewed on appeal.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair because the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation and followed a fair process.
Timeline
-
Restructure announced
Mr Cheetham held two virtual Teams calls to announce the restructure of the Commercial directorate.
-
Collective consultation commenced
The respondent wrote to elected representatives to start collective consultation, noting 227 employees at risk.
-
Individual consultation meeting
The claimant attended an individual consultation meeting with his line manager Rebecca Grace.
-
Scoring outcome communicated
Mr Cockett told the claimant he scored a 4 on the role-specific question for the Resource Management Planning Executive role, making him unappointable.
-
Second round of vacancies circulated
The respondent circulated the application process for remaining vacancies; the claimant applied for five roles.
-
Feedback meeting with Mr Cheetham
The claimant spoke to Mr Cheetham about his applications; the claimant believed he was told not to alter his CV.
-
Discussion about Operations Manager role
The claimant spoke to Jason Dixon about a potential Operations Manager vacancy, but the interview did not materialise.
-
Feedback meeting with Mr Reeves
Mr Reeves gave feedback on the claimant's applications and mentioned the claimant could be confrontational.
-
Meeting with HR
The claimant met Anthony Coombes from HR, who explained he would be made compulsorily redundant and could raise a grievance.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant raised a formal grievance covering his displacement, scoring, and lack of skills-matching.
-
Grievance meeting
Dawn Beard met the claimant to hear his grievance.
-
Grievance outcome
Ms Beard wrote to the claimant stating his grievance was not upheld.
-
Grievance appeal hearing
Steven Blunden heard the claimant's appeal against the grievance outcome.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed with a payment in lieu of notice and a statutory redundancy payment.
-
Grievance appeal outcome
Mr Blunden wrote to the claimant confirming the appeal was not upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal by reason of redundancy was fair, focusing on whether the respondent genuinely needed to make the claimant redundant, consulted properly, and took reasonable steps to find alternative employment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic downturn, and that the claimant's role was genuinely redundant.
The respondent carried out collective and individual consultation, and the claimant applied for 11 alternative roles but was unsuccessful. The scoring process for one role was not challenged by appeal, and the grievance process was thorough. The tribunal concluded that the respondent acted reasonably in all respects.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers facing genuine redundancy situations should carry out proper consultation and consider alternative roles to reduce the risk of unfair dismissal claims.
- Employees should use internal appeal processes for scoring or selection decisions, as failing to do so can weaken a later tribunal claim.
- A thorough grievance process that reviews decisions carefully can help demonstrate that the employer acted reasonably.
A redundancy case that passed the fairness test
This case shows what a fair redundancy process looks like in practice. The claimant, a Planning and Business Development Manager with over 12 years' service, was made redundant after the respondent restructured due to the COVID-19 pandemic downturn. The tribunal found that the employer had a genuine need to reduce headcount and followed a proper process.
The claimant applied for 11 alternative roles but was unsuccessful. He scored a 4 on a role-specific question for one role, making him unappointable. He did not appeal that scoring but later raised a grievance, which was not upheld at first instance but was thoroughly reviewed on appeal. The tribunal noted that the employer's consultation and redeployment efforts were reasonable.
What the employer did right
The respondent announced the restructure, started collective consultation, held individual consultation meetings, and gave feedback on applications. The claimant was dismissed with a payment in lieu of notice and a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal found that the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision highlights that tribunals will scrutinise whether the redundancy situation is genuine and whether the employer followed a fair process. Employees who believe they have been unfairly selected for redundancy should consider challenging scoring decisions through internal appeals early on. Employers should document their consultation and redeployment steps carefully to defend against claims.
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.
Dismissed by text message during lockdown: a TUPE redundancy that went wrong
A graphic designer with 15 years' service was dismissed by text message during the first lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected age discrimination claims.
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.
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.