Lead Design Engineer loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy selection process
A tribunal has ruled that a Lead Design Engineer with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring lowest on a selection matrix. The claim was dismissed in full.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #selection-matrix
- #consultation-process
- #appeal-process
- #whistleblowing-withdrawn
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Lead Design Engineer from 1 December 2009 until dismissal on 19 January 2022.
- The respondent restructured its Landscape Protection business unit, reducing the need for Design Engineers.
- The claimant was placed in a pool of four Design Engineers and scored lowest on a selection matrix.
- The claimant withdrew his whistleblowing claim during the hearing.
- The tribunal found the selection criteria and process were reasonable and fairly applied.
Timeline
-
Strategic review initiated
Ian Dean, new Managing Director, reviewed the Landscape Protection business unit and decided to focus on core products.
-
Restructure announced
Mr Knight presented the proposed restructure, consultation process, and selection criteria to the Engineering and NPD teams via Microsoft Teams.
-
First individual consultation meeting
The claimant attended a consultation meeting with Mr Knight and HR representative Miss Simpson. The claimant had previously sent a 47-question email expressing disagreement with the strategy.
-
At-risk letter sent
The claimant was formally informed he was at risk of redundancy.
-
Group presentation and reduction in redundancies
Mr Dean presented to affected employees. Following feedback, the number of proposed redundancies was reduced from two to one.
-
Respondent provided responses to questions
The respondent provided a spreadsheet answering 75 questions raised during consultation.
-
Second individual consultation meeting
The claimant was shown his scores and told he was provisionally selected for redundancy. He requested a copy of the scores.
-
Claimant appealed
The claimant emailed HR appealing his selection, citing unfair scoring, victimisation, and discrimination.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Tait heard the claimant's appeal, which lasted 5.5 hours. The claimant was accompanied by his union representative.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Tait informed the claimant that his appeal was unsuccessful.
-
Dismissal confirmed
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. He did not attend the final consultation meeting.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal by reason of redundancy was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996, focusing on whether the employer acted reasonably in its selection criteria, consultation, and appeal process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim in its entirety. The claimant had also withdrawn a whistleblowing claim during the hearing.
The key reasons were:
- The selection criteria were objective and applied consistently to all four engineers in the pool.
- The consultation process was thorough, with multiple meetings and a detailed response to 75 questions.
- The appeal hearing lasted 5.5 hours and was conducted by a different manager, who reasonably dismissed the appeal.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure redundancy selection criteria are objective and consistently applied to all employees in the pool.
- A thorough consultation process, including responding to employee questions and considering alternatives, strengthens the fairness of a redundancy.
- A separate manager should handle the appeal to ensure impartiality and a fresh look at the decision.
- Employees should engage with the consultation process and attend final meetings to avoid prejudicing their position.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates that a well-structured redundancy process can withstand scrutiny, even when an employee with long service is selected. The Lead Design Engineer had 12 years' service, but the tribunal found that the employer's selection matrix was objective and fairly applied. The claimant's concerns about the business strategy and scoring did not undermine the overall reasonableness of the process.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant represented himself and focused heavily on challenging the business decision to restructure, which is not something tribunals typically second-guess. He also withdrew a whistleblowing claim, which may have weakened his overall position. Engaging with the final consultation meeting and focusing on the selection process itself might have been more effective.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that tribunals will respect an employer's genuine business rationale for redundancy, provided the selection and consultation processes are fair. It also highlights the importance of a robust appeal process: here, a different manager spent 5.5 hours considering the appeal, which helped demonstrate reasonableness.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection score below breakpoint: a fair process upheld
A driver/custodian with 6 years' service was made redundant after scoring 16 out of a breakpoint of 19. The tribunal found the redundancy process fair and dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination.
Redundancy selection: lowest score in pool led to fair dismissal
A Holistic Assessor with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed after scoring lowest in a redundancy selection matrix. The tribunal found the process was reasonable despite the employee's concerns about the criteria.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: small business restructure after pandemic
An operations manager with 14 years' service was fairly dismissed when her role became redundant after the business automated processes and hired a head of operations. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
Janitor dismissed for unauthorised absences caught on CCTV: gross misconduct upheld
A janitor with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV and fob data showed he spent extended periods away from his post. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.