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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a multi-skilled engineer from 23 September 2013 until 15 June 2020.
- A genuine redundancy situation arose in May 2020, and the claimant was placed in a pool of 13 engineers.
- Mr Lawrence scored the claimant low on skills and performance, leading to his selection for redundancy.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent failed to conduct meaningful consultation and used a biased appeal process.
- The claimant's race discrimination claim failed as the tribunal found no evidence that Mr Lawrence's actions were motivated by the claimant's Polish nationality.
- The parties settled the remedy before a hearing, so no compensation was awarded.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Centriforce Products Limited as a multi-skilled engineer.
-
First incident with Mr Lawrence
Mr Lawrence walked away while the claimant was speaking about temperature gauges and later described the claimant as low skilled.
-
Claimant furloughed
The claimant was placed on furlough due to reduced orders during the pandemic.
-
Scoring for redundancy
Mr Lawrence scored the multi-skilled engineers using a four-point matrix; the claimant scored low and was at risk.
-
First individual consultation
A telephone meeting lasting less than 15 minutes; the claimant was not shown his scores.
-
Second individual consultation
A telephone meeting lasting less than 5 minutes; the claimant again protested his low score.
-
Third consultation and dismissal notice
A 5-minute telephone meeting where the claimant was told his employment would end on 15 June 2020.
-
Appeal and grievance hearing
Mr Dawson heard the claimant's redundancy appeal and grievance via Zoom; the claimant was accompanied by Mr Vick.
-
Dismissal effective
The claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant filed claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy due to a flawed selection process and whether the treatment by his manager amounted to direct race discrimination because of his Polish nationality.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was unfair. Centriforce Products Limited had a genuine redundancy situation but conducted a flawed process: the individual consultation meetings were very brief (totalling less than 25 minutes), the claimant was not shown his scores, and the appeal hearing was biased because the appeal manager had prior involvement in the selection. However, the race discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no evidence that the manager's actions were motivated by the claimant's Polish nationality.
The parties settled the remedy before a hearing, so no compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct meaningful individual consultation during redundancy, including sharing scores and giving employees a chance to challenge them.
- Brief telephone calls without proper discussion are unlikely to satisfy the requirement for fair consultation.
- Appeal hearings must be conducted by someone independent of the original decision to avoid bias.
- A genuine redundancy situation does not automatically make a dismissal fair if the process is flawed.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a redundancy process that is technically genuine can still be unfair if the employer rushes through consultation and fails to engage properly with the employee. The engineer, who had worked for Centriforce Products Limited for six years, was placed in a pool of 13 multi-skilled engineers. The manager responsible for scoring gave him low marks, but the consultation consisted of three very short telephone calls: the first lasted less than 15 minutes, the second less than 5 minutes, and the third also about 5 minutes. The employee was not shown his scores or given a meaningful opportunity to respond. This fell far short of the standard required for a fair dismissal.
What the losing side could have done differently
Centriforce could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by conducting longer, more detailed consultation meetings where the employee could see his scores and challenge them. The appeal process was also flawed because the appeal manager had been involved in the redundancy selection earlier, making the appeal biased. An independent appeal manager would have been appropriate. The employer also failed to consider alternative roles or explore whether the scoring was accurate, given that the employee had six years of service and had not previously been flagged as low-performing.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that even in a genuine redundancy situation, the process must be fair. Employees facing redundancy are entitled to proper consultation, access to their scores, and an unbiased appeal. The fact that the race discrimination claim failed shows that not every unfairness is discriminatory; the claimant must prove that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor. Here, the tribunal found the manager's behaviour was dismissive but not racially motivated. The case also shows that compensation can be settled privately, but the finding of unfair dismissal stands as a warning to employers who cut corners.
Similar cases
Dismissed security guard wins unfair dismissal and victimisation claims
A former employee of Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd has succeeded in unfair dismissal and victimisation claims after being dismissed for conduct failings. Remedy is yet to be determined.
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.
Race discrimination and unfair dismissal: employer fails to attend tribunal
A former employee won £13,617 after a tribunal found she was racially discriminated against, harassed, and unfairly dismissed by LJE Management Limited, which did not attend the hearing.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.