Senior Supervisor selected for redundancy after appraisal re-done without his input
A Senior Supervisor with 3.5 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer re-did his performance appraisal without consulting him, then failed to provide evidence of the appeal process. The tribunal awarded £16,211.91.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Supervisor from November 2019 until dismissal on 30 June 2021.
- The respondent conducted a redundancy process in 2021 due to the pandemic downturn.
- The claimant's performance appraisal used for selection was redone without his input.
- The respondent failed to provide evidence of the appeal process despite requests.
- The claimant was awarded £16,211.91 in compensation for unfair dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment with the respondent.
-
Promotion to Senior Supervisor
Claimant was promoted to Senior Supervisor.
-
Risk of redundancy letter
Claimant informed about potential redundancy due to pandemic.
-
Consultation meeting
Meeting held with claimant regarding selection criteria and appraisal.
-
New assessment result
Claimant informed that re-done assessment still resulted in lower score.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant selected for redundancy; last working day 30 June 2021.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed dismissal via email.
-
Started university course
Claimant enrolled in a full-time course in regenerative agriculture.
-
Obtained new employment
Claimant found work around June/July 2022.
-
Final hearing (liability)
Liability hearing held on 30 May and 1 June 2023.
-
Liability judgment
Judgment finding unfair dismissal.
-
Remedy hearing
Remedy hearing held; compensation awarded.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's redundancy selection process, including the scoring of performance appraisals and the handling of the appeal, fell within the range of reasonable responses for a fair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled the dismissal was unfair.
- The employer re-did the claimant's performance appraisal without giving him the chance to comment, which undermined the fairness of the selection process.
- The employer also failed to provide any evidence that a proper appeal process took place, despite the claimant lodging an appeal.
- Compensation of £16,211.91 was awarded, covering the period from dismissal (30 June 2021) until the claimant found new work in June/July 2022.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees selected for redundancy should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any performance appraisals used in scoring.
- Employers must properly document and evidence the redundancy appeal process, including any decisions made.
- Length of service (3.5 years here) does not reduce the need for a fair process; even relatively short-serving employees are entitled to procedural fairness.
- Claimants who represent themselves can still succeed if the employer fails to follow basic fair procedures.
When a redundancy process goes wrong
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward redundancy selection can become unfair when the employer cuts corners. The claimant, a Senior Supervisor with 3.5 years' service, was made redundant during the pandemic downturn. The employer used performance appraisals to score staff and select who would go. But when the claimant's original appraisal was deemed unsuitable, the employer re-did it without giving him any input.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that re-scoring the appraisal behind the claimant's back was a fundamental flaw. A fair process would have allowed him to see the new scores and challenge them. The employer also failed to provide any evidence that the claimant's appeal was properly considered. When asked for documents about the appeal, the employer simply did not produce them. This lack of transparency was fatal to their case.
What this means for similar claims
The case is a reminder that procedural fairness matters in redundancy, regardless of the economic pressures on the business. Employees facing redundancy should be consulted at every stage, especially when scoring is involved. For employers, the message is clear: document everything, give employees a chance to respond to scoring, and ensure appeals are properly handled and recorded. The compensation of £16,211.91 reflected the claimant's loss of earnings until he found new work, but the real lesson is about the process, not the payout.
Similar cases
Redundancy selection scoring upheld: fair process and consultation saved the day
A Heating Sales Advisor with five years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after a tribunal found that British Gas Services Limited followed a fair redundancy process, including collective consultation, objective scoring, and a proper appeal.
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.
27-year mechanic made redundant: selection criteria upheld as fair
A mechanic with 27 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring zero under agreed criteria, the tribunal found. No compensation was awarded.
Dispatch supervisor made redundant without any consultation: unfair dismissal award
A dispatch supervisor with four years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without a proper selection pool, objective criteria, or any meaningful consultation. The tribunal awarded £661.95 in compensation.