Credit manager unfairly dismissed after redundancy scores withheld until meeting
A credit manager with 6 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to share redundancy selection scores before the meeting and the appeal did not properly investigate. She was awarded £3,354.55.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #unfair-dismissal
- #polkey-reduction
- #failure-to-provide-scores
- #appeal-process-flawed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Credit Manager from 6 May 2014 until 7 August 2020.
- She was dismissed by reason of redundancy after a selection process with one other employee.
- The respondent failed to provide the claimant with her scores before the meeting on 3 August 2020.
- The appeal officer did not adequately investigate the scoring process.
- The tribunal found a 25% chance the claimant would have been retained had the process been fair.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment with the respondent as a Credit Manager.
-
Maternity leave start
Claimant commenced maternity leave.
-
Flexible working request
Claimant discussed returning part-time; Mr Flewitt supported the request.
-
Maternity leave end
Claimant's maternity leave ended, but she took further leave until March.
-
Return to work
Claimant returned to work part-time.
-
National lockdown
UK entered first national lockdown due to COVID-19.
-
Redundancy announcement
Respondent announced proposed redundancies and selection matrix.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant met with Mr Flewitt to discuss business rationale.
-
Scores presented
Claimant was given her scores and told she was selected for redundancy.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with payment in lieu of notice.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Rainger; claimant raised concerns about scoring.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Rainger upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in the redundancy selection process, including whether the claimant was given a fair opportunity to challenge her scores and whether the appeal was thorough enough.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy.
- The key reasons were that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with her selection scores before the meeting on 3 August 2020, and the appeal officer did not adequately investigate the scoring process.
- The tribunal applied a Polkey reduction of 75%, finding that there was only a 25% chance the claimant would have been retained had a fair process been followed.
- Compensation was limited to a compensatory award of £3,354.55, with no basic award or contributory fault.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should share redundancy selection scores with employees before any meeting where the outcome is discussed, giving them a fair chance to challenge.
- An appeal that does not properly investigate the scoring process is likely to be seen as a procedural flaw, making the dismissal unfair.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, compensation can be reduced if the tribunal thinks the employee would probably have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
A redundancy process that fell short
This case shows how even a genuine redundancy situation can lead to an unfair dismissal finding if the employer cuts procedural corners. The claimant, a credit manager with six years' service, was selected for redundancy after a process involving just two employees. The respondent, Ransomes Jacobsen Limited, had a legitimate business need to reduce headcount, but the way it handled the selection and appeal let it down.
The tribunal highlighted two key failures. First, the claimant was not given her selection scores until the meeting on 3 August 2020, when she was told she was being dismissed. This meant she had no real opportunity to challenge the scoring or ask questions beforehand. Second, the appeal officer, Mr Rainger, did not properly investigate the scoring process. He accepted the scores at face value without probing how they were reached or whether they were fair.
What the employer could have done differently
Ransomes Jacobsen could have avoided this outcome by sharing the scores with the claimant in advance of the meeting, allowing her time to prepare a response. On appeal, the officer should have examined the scoring matrix in detail, asked the manager who did the scoring to explain his reasoning, and considered whether the criteria were applied consistently. A more thorough approach would have given the process the fairness it needed.
Why the result matters
This decision is a reminder that procedural fairness is not optional in redundancy exercises. Employees who believe they were not given a proper chance to challenge their selection may have a claim for unfair dismissal, even if the redundancy was genuine. The Polkey reduction here—75%—reflects the tribunal's view that the claimant had only a 25% chance of keeping her job even with a fair process. That reduced her compensation significantly, but the finding of unfairness still stands, and the employer had to pay £3,354.55.
Similar cases
Redundancy unfair when selection criteria kept secret from employee
An Optimisation Engineer with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after Unipart Group failed to disclose redundancy selection criteria or scores during consultation. The tribunal found the process both procedurally and substantively unfair.
Senior compliance officer unfairly selected for redundancy using wrong pay scale
A senior compliance officer was unfairly dismissed after being scored for redundancy against the wrong pay scale. The tribunal awarded £22,987.92 after applying a 15% Polkey reduction.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Unfair dismissal and unpaid notice: a procedural failure that cost £8,000
A former employee was unfairly dismissed and denied proper notice pay and annual leave. The tribunal awarded £8,000 after finding the employer failed to follow a fair process.