Building supervisor with 15 years' service unfairly dismissed in flawed redundancy process
A building supervisor was unfairly dismissed after a redundancy selection process that made a final decision before meaningful consultation. The tribunal awarded £4,130.86, reduced by 85% for the chance he would have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #unfair-consultation
- #polkey-deduction
- #health-concerns
- #scoring-process
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Building Supervisor from 23 January 2005 until 24 November 2020.
- The respondent decided to reduce the number of Building Supervisors from 2 to 1 due to a downturn in work.
- Three managers scored the claimant and a colleague using selection criteria; one manager had insufficient direct knowledge of the claimant's work.
- The consultation process was defective because a final selection decision was made before the claimant had a meaningful opportunity to contest his selection.
- The appeal failed to investigate the claimant's principal complaint that his health concerns led to his dismissal.
- The tribunal found an 85% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the respondent as a Building Supervisor.
-
Appointed Building Supervisor
The claimant was appointed to the role of Building Supervisor.
-
Lockdown began
The UK lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic came into effect, reducing demand for work on BT contracts.
-
Furlough letter sent
The claimant was sent a letter placing him on furlough with effect from 6 April 2020.
-
Furlough ended
The claimant's furlough ended, and he returned to work 'on the tools'.
-
Meeting with Mr Hawkins
The claimant met with Mr Hawkins, who suggested he consider voluntary redundancy if offered.
-
At risk letter
The claimant was informed he was at risk of redundancy and invited to consultation.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant was told he had been provisionally selected for redundancy; Mr Wells was told he had been selected for the role.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, effective immediately.
-
Appeal rejected
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was rejected by Mr Neal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's redundancy selection process, consultation, and appeal were conducted fairly, and whether the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair. The key reasons were:
- The selection process was flawed: one manager who scored the claimant had insufficient direct knowledge of his work.
- The consultation was defective: a final decision was made before the claimant had a meaningful opportunity to contest his selection.
- The appeal failed to investigate the claimant's principal complaint that his health concerns led to his dismissal.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £0.00
- Compensatory award: £3,780.86 (including £350 for loss of statutory rights)
- Polkey reduction: 85% (the chance he would have been dismissed even with a fair process)
- Total: £4,130.86
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure that all managers scoring in a redundancy selection process have sufficient direct knowledge of the employee's work.
- Do not make a final selection decision before giving the employee a meaningful opportunity to contest their provisional selection.
- Appeals must properly investigate the employee's specific complaints, including any concerns about health or discrimination.
- Keep clear records of consultation meetings and the reasons for selection decisions to demonstrate fairness.
A flawed process from the start
This case shows how a redundancy process that appears structured on paper can still be unfair if the employer rushes to a decision. The building supervisor, who had worked for Emcor Group (UK) Plc for 15 years, was selected for redundancy after the company decided to reduce the number of supervisors from two to one. Three managers scored him and a colleague using selection criteria, but one manager had little direct knowledge of his work — a red flag that the tribunal noted.
More fundamentally, the employer made a final selection decision before the claimant had a proper chance to contest it. At a meeting on 17 November 2020, he was told he had been 'provisionally selected' — but the tribunal found that the decision was effectively final. The consultation was a formality, not a genuine attempt to explore alternatives or hear his side.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by ensuring all scorers knew the claimant's work, and by genuinely consulting before deciding. The appeal also fell short: the claimant had raised concerns that his health problems (a heart condition and psoriasis) had influenced the decision, but the appeal manager did not investigate this. A fair process would have considered whether adjustments could have been made or whether the scoring was affected by the claimant's health-related absences or limitations.
Why the result matters
The tribunal applied a Polkey reduction of 85%, meaning it found there was an 85% chance the claimant would have been dismissed even with a fair process. This significantly reduced the compensation, but the case still serves as a warning: employers cannot cut corners in redundancy selection, especially when an employee has long service and health issues. The award of £4,130.86 reflects the limited loss after the reduction, but the finding of unfair dismissal stands as a reminder that process matters as much as outcome.
Similar cases
Regional Sales Manager unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring was pre-determined
A tribunal found that Syspal Ltd unfairly dismissed a Regional Sales Manager with 2 years 7 months' service because the redundancy selection process was pre-determined and the scoring matrix flawed. He was awarded £32,735 in compensation.
Redundancy selection with predetermined outcome: unfair dismissal for senior adviser with 20 years' service
A senior financial adviser with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a redundancy process where the outcome was predetermined. The tribunal awarded £24,229.53, reduced by 80% due to the chance he would have been dismissed anyway.
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.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.