Redundancy selection upheld despite parental leave concerns: a fair process
A tribunal ruled that a mechanical maintenance engineer with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy, rejecting claims that his parental leave was the real reason.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #selection-criteria
- #parental-leave
- #consultation-process
- #appeal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Mechanical Maintenance Engineer from 21 October 2013 until dismissal on 16 June 2020.
- The respondent restructured due to a downturn in the oil and gas industry and the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in 24 redundancies.
- The selection pool comprised two Mechanical Maintenance Engineers: the claimant and Dewi Slyman.
- The claimant scored lower than Mr Slyman on the skills criterion, leading to his provisional selection for redundancy.
- Three consultation meetings were held, and the claimant's appeal was considered by a senior manager who upheld the decision.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's parental leave was not the real reason for dismissal; redundancy was the genuine reason.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Machinist/Turner (CNC Operator/Machinist) at the respondent.
-
Wife's death
Claimant's wife died suddenly; respondent granted paid compassionate leave until Christmas 2017.
-
New role as Mechanical Maintenance Engineer
Claimant transferred to the Maintenance Department after applying for a Maintenance Engineer role.
-
Parental leave entitlement confirmed
HR confirmed claimant's entitlement to parental leave; manager Ian Jenkins approved the requests.
-
National lockdown
UK entered lockdown due to COVID-19; respondent's business severely impacted.
-
Restructuring announced
Respondent announced Project Horizon Phase III, proposing 24 redundancies across departments.
-
Provisional redundancy selection
Claimant informed he was provisionally selected for redundancy; consultation process began.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant raised concerns about the selection process and his appraisal.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant attended with a companion; further discussion of his objections.
-
Third consultation meeting
Claimant's written questions were answered; no alternative roles found.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy; right to appeal given.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the redundancy decision.
-
Appeal dismissed
Andrew Thomas upheld the original decision after a 'deep dive' into the scoring.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The key issues were whether the reason for dismissal was redundancy or the claimant's exercise of parental leave, and whether the respondent acted reasonably in its redundancy process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
- The tribunal accepted that the respondent faced a genuine redundancy situation due to a downturn in the oil and gas industry and the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The selection pool of two mechanical maintenance engineers was reasonable, and the skills criterion used to score the claimant and his colleague was fair.
- The claimant's parental leave was not the real reason for dismissal; the respondent had a genuine redundancy reason.
- The consultation process included three meetings, and the appeal was properly considered by a senior manager.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation, supported by business evidence, can justify dismissal even if the employee has personal circumstances like parental leave.
- Employers should ensure selection criteria are objective and consistently applied to avoid claims of unfairness.
- A thorough consultation process with multiple meetings and a proper appeal can demonstrate reasonableness.
- Employees should be aware that being on parental leave does not automatically protect them from redundancy if the process is fair.
A redundancy decision that passed the test
This case shows that a well-documented redundancy process can survive scrutiny even when an employee has been on parental leave and raises concerns about discrimination. The claimant, a mechanical maintenance engineer with seven years' service, was selected for redundancy after his employer restructured due to the oil and gas downturn and the pandemic. He argued that his dismissal was actually because he had taken parental leave following his wife's death, but the tribunal rejected that.
What the employer did right
The respondent, Freudenberg Oil & Gas Technologies Limited, had a genuine business need to reduce headcount by 24 roles. It placed the claimant and one other engineer in a selection pool, used a skills criterion to score them, and held three consultation meetings. The claimant's appeal was reviewed by a senior HR vice president who conducted a 'deep dive' into the scoring. The tribunal found the process was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the result matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that a fair redundancy process can override concerns about indirect discrimination. For employers, it reinforces the importance of clear selection criteria, meaningful consultation, and a robust appeal. The tribunal noted that the claimant's parental leave was not the real reason for dismissal, and the respondent's actions were reasonable throughout.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal upheld: fair process despite pandemic pressures
A tribunal has ruled that a storekeeper's redundancy dismissal was fair, finding that the employer followed a reasonable selection process and consulted properly during the pandemic.
28-year employee made redundant after COVID-19: fair dismissal despite long service
An expert consultant with 28 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after her one-day-a-week role was eliminated due to COVID-19. The tribunal rejected claims of age and sex discrimination.
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.
Part-time fitness instructor unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A tribunal found that Greenwich Leisure Ltd unfairly dismissed an 8-year employee during pandemic redundancies, due to flawed selection criteria and a lack of consultation.