Redundancy unfair when selection criteria kept secret from employee
An Optimisation Engineer with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after Unipart Group failed to disclose redundancy selection criteria or scores during consultation. The tribunal found the process both procedurally and substantively unfair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #unfair-dismissal
- #selection-criteria
- #consultation-failure
- #google-drive-disclosure
- #polkey-reduction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Optimisation Engineer from 14 October 2019 to 31 December 2021.
- The respondent restructured its Digital Team in 2021, reducing headcount from 17 to 10.
- The claimant was placed in a redundancy selection pool with four other employees.
- The selection criteria and scores were not disclosed to the claimant during the consultation process.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair due to lack of meaningful consultation and inadequate evidence on scoring.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as an Optimisation Engineer at Unipart Group's Cambridge site.
-
Redundancy announcement
Respondent announced redundancies in the Digital Team via remote meeting; claimant not present as it was his non-working day.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant met with HR manager Debra Syme and interim line manager Anya Dulnik; raised visa concerns and proposed reduced hours.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant was shown the proposed new structure; asked about selection criteria but received no specific information.
-
Third consultation meeting
Claimant sent an email reiterating concerns about selection criteria and pool; meeting did not address his points substantively.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant received termination letter confirming dismissal effective 31 December 2021.
-
Appeal hearing
Dr David McGorman heard the claimant's appeal; claimant again requested selection criteria but was not provided with them.
-
Appeal outcome
Dr McGorman upheld the dismissal, stating all legal obligations were met.
-
Disclosure of selection criteria
Respondent disclosed the selection criteria and scores to the claimant for the first time, shortly before the final hearing.
-
Final hearing (day 1)
Tribunal heard evidence and submissions; claimant's strike-out application refused.
-
Final hearing (day 2)
Tribunal concluded hearing and reserved judgment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee's dismissal for redundancy was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, focusing on whether Unipart Group acted reasonably in its selection process and consultation.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because Unipart Group did not share the redundancy selection criteria or scores with the employee during the consultation process. This meant the employee could not challenge or understand how the decision was made, making the process both procedurally and substantively flawed.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair on both procedural and substantive grounds.
- A 40% Polkey reduction was applied, meaning the employee would have been dismissed anyway in 60% of cases.
- Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing; no figures were awarded at this stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must disclose selection criteria and scores during redundancy consultation to allow employees a fair opportunity to respond.
- Even in a genuine redundancy situation, a failure to consult meaningfully can render a dismissal unfair.
- Employees with less than two years' service may still bring an unfair dismissal claim if the reason is automatically unfair, but here the employee had exactly two years' service, so the claim was possible.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal finds the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
This case shows how a redundancy process can be undermined by a simple failure: not sharing the selection criteria with the affected employee. The Optimisation Engineer, who had two years' service, was placed in a pool of five employees. Despite repeatedly asking for the criteria and scores during consultation meetings, he was given no specific information. Only shortly before the final hearing did Unipart Group disclose the documents.
What went wrong
The tribunal found that the lack of disclosure prevented the employee from engaging meaningfully in the consultation. He could not challenge his scores or suggest alternatives because he did not know how he was being assessed. The respondent's failure to provide this basic information made the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The tribunal also noted that the respondent's key witnesses had left the company, leaving limited direct evidence about what happened during the process.
What could have been done differently
Unipart Group could have shared the selection criteria and scores at the start of the consultation, allowing the employee to understand his position and make representations. Even if the outcome would have been the same, a fair process would have given the employee a genuine opportunity to be heard. The tribunal applied a 40% Polkey reduction, indicating that a fair process would likely have led to dismissal in 60% of cases, but the unfairness still attracted a remedy.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy is not just about the business need; the process must be fair. For employees, it shows the importance of requesting information and documenting any refusal. For employers, it highlights that transparency in selection is not optional—it is a legal requirement to ensure a fair dismissal.
Similar cases
Senior compliance officer unfairly selected for redundancy using wrong pay scale
A senior compliance officer was unfairly dismissed after being scored for redundancy against the wrong pay scale. The tribunal awarded £22,987.92 after applying a 15% Polkey reduction.
GP made redundant after whistleblowing: unfair dismissal but no automatic protection
A GP with two years' service was unfairly dismissed in a flawed redundancy process. The tribunal awarded £78,857 but rejected his whistleblowing claims, finding redundancy was the true reason.
Credit manager unfairly dismissed after redundancy scores withheld until meeting
A credit manager with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to share redundancy selection scores before the meeting and the appeal did not properly investigate. She was awarded £3,354.55.
Multi-skilled engineer unfairly dismissed after rushed redundancy consultation
A multi-skilled engineer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed by Centriforce Products Limited after a redundancy process that involved three brief telephone calls and a biased appeal. The tribunal found the consultation was not meaningful.