Fabrication welder loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy selection while on furlough
A fabrication welder with 8 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after being scored lowest in his pool, despite having undisclosed disabilities and being on furlough. The tribunal upheld the employer's process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Fabrication Welder from 18 June 2012 to 4 January 2021.
- The respondent restructured due to financial difficulties and placed 13 employees at risk of redundancy.
- The claimant was scored lowest in the welding pool using objective criteria and was selected for redundancy.
- The claimant had disabilities including COPD, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, atrial fibrillation, and stroke, but did not disclose them to the respondent.
- The respondent followed a fair consultation process and offered alternative vacancies, which the claimant did not apply for.
- The appeal panel adjusted the claimant's attendance score but it did not change the outcome.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Welder.
-
Stroke
Claimant suffered a stroke, leading to atrial fibrillation and depression.
-
COPD diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
-
Sick leave due to COVID-19 symptoms
Claimant went on sick leave with a persistent dry cough.
-
Furlough commenced
Claimant placed on furlough leave under the CJRS.
-
Redundancy consultation started
Respondent announced restructuring and placed claimant at risk of redundancy.
-
Dismissal decision
Claimant informed he would be dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the redundancy decision.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal panel rejected most grounds but adjusted attendance score; outcome unchanged.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether the respondent discriminated against him arising from disability or failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims: unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to financial difficulties.
- The selection pool and criteria were objective and fairly applied.
- The claimant did not disclose his disabilities to the respondent, so the respondent was not aware and could not be expected to know.
- The consultation process was fair, and alternative vacancies were offered but not applied for.
- The appeal panel adjusted the attendance score, but the outcome remained the same.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were not well-founded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have a disability that may affect your performance or attendance, consider disclosing it to your employer so they can make reasonable adjustments.
- Being on furlough does not protect you from redundancy selection if the employer uses objective criteria and follows a fair process.
- Employers should ensure selection criteria are objective and consistently applied, and that consultation is meaningful even for furloughed employees.
- An appeal process that reviews scores and adjusts them can help demonstrate fairness, even if the outcome does not change.
This case shows that a redundancy process can be fair even when an employee is on furlough and has health conditions, provided the employer follows proper procedures and uses objective criteria. The claimant, a fabrication welder with eight years' service, was selected for redundancy after his employer restructured due to financial difficulties. He was scored lowest in his pool using criteria such as skills, experience, and attendance.
What the employer did right
Sterling Thermal Technology Limited placed 13 employees at risk, consulted individually, and offered alternative roles. The claimant did not apply for any of the vacancies. The appeal panel adjusted the claimant's attendance score, but it did not change the outcome. The tribunal noted that the respondent acted within the 'band of reasonable responses' – the legal test for fairness.
The undisclosed disability issue
The claimant had several disabilities, including COPD and a history of stroke, but he did not tell his employer. The tribunal found that the respondent could not be expected to know about conditions the claimant had not disclosed. This meant the claims for discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments failed. For employees, this is a reminder that employers can only make adjustments if they know about the disability.
Why the result matters
The case reinforces that redundancy selection is about objective criteria, not personal circumstances. Being on furlough or having health issues does not automatically make a dismissal unfair. Employers who follow a structured process, consult genuinely, and consider alternatives are likely to defend such claims successfully. For employees, the key takeaway is to communicate any disabilities early and engage with the consultation process, including applying for alternative roles.
Similar cases
Seasonal groundsman dismissed while running own business: disability discrimination claims fail
A seasonal groundsman who was dismissed while signed off sick lost his disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims after the tribunal found he was not genuinely unable to work due to his disability but was instead pursuing his own private businesses.
Redundancy selection after a workplace injury: when a fair process can still lead to dismissal
A Food and Beverage Assistant who fractured his hip at work and was later made redundant during the pandemic has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the redundancy process was fair and that his disability was not the reason for his selection.
Redundancy after maternity leave: fair dismissal despite flexible working request
A senior administrator who was made redundant shortly after returning from maternity leave has lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. The tribunal found the redundancy process was fair and not linked to her pregnancy or flexible working request.
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.