17-year employee loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy scoring
A workshop planning co-ordinator with 17 years' service failed to prove his redundancy selection was unfair or discriminatory. The tribunal found Jaguar Land Rover's process was reasonable.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by Jaguar Land Rover Ltd from 20 September 2004 until 30 November 2021.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy as part of a large collective resizing programme following the pandemic.
- The claimant scored lowest in his selection pool of five C-grade employees.
- The claimant was placed in a Displacement and Redeployment Process (DRP) and applied for 11 roles but was unsuccessful.
- The claimant's appeal against redundancy was not upheld.
- The tribunal found no evidence of age or race discrimination in the redundancy process.
Timeline
-
Adam Page becomes manager
Adam Page joined the PDW team as Manager of the Engineering Workshops.
-
Page learns of RDP
Adam Page started hearing about the respondent's Redeployment and Displacement Process (RDP) and was informed he needed to reduce headcount from 17 to 14.
-
Warning of redundancies
A warning regarding redundancies was given to all affected employees; the claimant received an email informing him his job may be at risk.
-
First consultation meeting
The claimant's first individual consultation meeting took place with Adam Page; he was told his score of 42 and that he was at risk of redundancy.
-
Claimant requests score breakdown
The claimant emailed Mr Page asking for his score breakdown; Mr Page provided a breakdown of performance, behavioural, and technical scores.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant attended a further meeting with his trade union representative; discussed redeployment and the selection pool.
-
Detailed scoring breakdown provided
Mr Page sent the claimant a detailed scoring breakdown via email, including the 'D Orgill Assessment Tool Output'.
-
Appeal submitted
The claimant submitted an appeal against the decision to place him in the RDP (selection for redundancy).
-
Final consultation and redundancy confirmed
A final consultation meeting took place; the claimant's redundancy was confirmed in a letter dated 3 November 2021.
-
Appeal hearing
An appeal hearing was chaired by Mr Robert Scott and Mr Martin Brown; the claimant's appeal was not upheld.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's last day of employment with Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for redundancy was fair, and whether the claimant was subjected to direct age discrimination, direct race discrimination, or indirect age discrimination in the redundancy process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims: unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, direct race discrimination, and indirect age discrimination.
- The redundancy was genuine following a large-scale resizing programme after the pandemic.
- The selection pool and scoring criteria were reasonable and applied consistently.
- The claimant scored lowest in his pool and was given a fair chance at redeployment, applying for 11 roles without success.
- No evidence of less favourable treatment due to age or race was found.
- No compensation was awarded as the dismissal was fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service does not guarantee protection from redundancy if objective selection criteria are used fairly.
- Employers should document the redundancy process thoroughly, including consultation meetings and scoring rationale.
- Employees should engage fully with redeployment opportunities and keep records of applications.
- Claims of discrimination require direct evidence of less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic.
- A fair redundancy process includes adequate warning, consultation, objective selection, and consideration of alternative roles.
A redundancy process under scrutiny
This case shows how a long-serving employee can still be fairly dismissed for redundancy when a genuine business need exists and the process is properly followed. The claimant, a workshop planning co-ordinator with 17 years' service, was selected as part of a reduction in headcount from 17 to 14 after the pandemic. He scored lowest in his pool of five employees using an objective assessment tool covering performance, behaviour, and technical skills.
What the employer did right
Jaguar Land Rover carried out individual consultation meetings, provided scoring breakdowns, and placed the claimant in a Displacement and Redeployment Process. He applied for 11 roles but was unsuccessful. The tribunal noted that the employer's approach was within the range of reasonable responses, and there was no evidence that age or race played any part in the scoring or selection.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant argued that a younger colleague in the same pool was treated more favourably, but the tribunal found no less favourable treatment – the scores were based on objective criteria applied equally. Claims about a lack of handover or missing performance review were not linked to age or race. The indirect age discrimination claim, based on the redeployment policy, also failed because the policy was a proportionate means of managing redundancies.
What this means for similar cases
For employees facing redundancy, this case highlights the importance of engaging with the process and gathering evidence of any unfairness. For employers, it reinforces that a well-documented, objective, and consultative redundancy process can withstand legal challenge, even when a long-serving employee is affected.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Redundancy selection based on length of service: fair process upheld
An assembly operative with two years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after his employer used a length-of-service scoring matrix. The tribunal also rejected his race discrimination claim.
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.
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.