Redundancy selection upheld despite employee's COVID-19 safety disclosures
A structural fabricator who raised COVID-19 safety concerns was fairly selected for redundancy when his employer closed a business unit. The tribunal found no link between his disclosures and his dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The respondent decided to close the structural fabrication side of the business in December 2020 due to health issues of key personnel and to ensure long-term viability.
- Six structural fabricators were placed in a redundancy selection pool, and the claimant scored second highest.
- The claimant raised COVID-19 safety concerns in May 2020, which the tribunal accepted as qualifying public interest disclosures.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 12 January 2021 and placed on garden leave on 25 January 2021.
- The claimant did not exercise his right to appeal against the dismissal.
- The tribunal found no causal link between the claimant's protected disclosures and his dismissal or alleged detriments.
Timeline
-
Claimant raised COVID-19 safety concerns
The claimant raised concerns about staff not adhering to social distancing measures. An employee who had contact with a positive COVID-19 case was sent home after the claimant's intervention.
-
Decision to close structural fabrication
The respondent decided to close the structural fabrication side of the business due to health issues of the general manager and proprietor, and to ensure long-term viability.
-
Announcement of business transformation
Employees were invited to a meeting and put on notice of business transformation, with structural fabrication closing to new business from 31 January 2021.
-
Consultation meeting with claimant
The claimant attended a consultation meeting with Mr Ford and Mr Seach to discuss redundancy, scoring, and alternative employment options.
-
Claimant advised of redundancy dismissal
The claimant and other unsuccessful employees were advised of the decision to terminate their employment by reason of redundancy.
-
Claimant placed on garden leave
The claimant was placed on garden leave due to alleged obstructive attitude and derogatory remarks following the redundancy announcement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed (both ordinary and automatic) for making public interest disclosures about COVID-19 safety, and whether he suffered detriments for those disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the respondent had a genuine business reason to close the structural fabrication side of the business due to health issues of key personnel and to ensure long-term viability. The redundancy selection process was fair, and the claimant scored second highest in the pool. There was no evidence that his COVID-19 safety disclosures influenced the decision to dismiss him or any of the alleged detriments.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Raising health and safety concerns does not automatically protect you from a genuine redundancy selection, as long as the employer can show the redundancy is genuine and the process is fair.
- Small employers may have more flexibility in redundancy decisions, but they must still follow a fair process and consult affected employees.
- If you believe your dismissal is linked to a protected disclosure, you need evidence of a causal connection – the timing alone may not be enough.
- Failing to appeal a dismissal can weaken your case, as tribunals may view it as a failure to give the employer a chance to correct any errors.
When redundancy is genuine, disclosures may not help
This case shows that even when an employee has made protected disclosures – here about COVID-19 safety – a subsequent redundancy dismissal can still be fair if the employer can show a genuine business reason and a fair selection process. The structural fabricator had raised concerns about social distancing in May 2020, but the tribunal accepted that the decision to close the structural fabrication side was driven by the health of key personnel and long-term viability, not by his disclosures.
The respondent, Standley Steel Stockholders, consulted with the affected employees, used objective scoring criteria, and placed the claimant second in the pool. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not appeal his dismissal, which might have allowed the employer to address any concerns.
What the employer did right
The employer took legal advice, consulted with a business advisor and ACAS, and communicated the changes transparently. The decision to close the unit was not taken lightly, and the selection process was based on objective factors. The tribunal found no causal link between the disclosures and the dismissal or any detriment – the claimant was not treated differently because of his concerns.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employees who raise health and safety concerns should not assume they are immune from redundancy. The key is whether the employer can show the redundancy is genuine and the process is fair. If you believe your disclosure played a part, you need evidence of a connection – timing alone is rarely enough. For employers, this case reinforces the importance of proper consultation and objective criteria, especially when dealing with small businesses under pressure.
Similar cases
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.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: how a small employer handled pandemic restructuring fairly
A Watford tribunal found that Flitetec Ltd fairly dismissed a senior sales account manager for redundancy after losing 70% of its revenue during the pandemic. The claim was dismissed.
Whistleblowing claim fails: redundancy was the real reason for dismissal
An out-of-hours call centre supervisor with four months' service was dismissed for redundancy during the pandemic. The tribunal found that, although she had made one protected disclosure, it was not the reason she lost her job.
Warehouse assistant who refused to return over Covid fears loses whistleblowing claim
A part-time warehouse assistant who refused to return to work due to Covid-19 safety concerns has lost his claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment against the British Heart Foundation.