Management accountant dismissed after unfair PIP and redundancy selection
A management accountant was unfairly dismissed after being selected for redundancy following a grossly unfair performance improvement plan. The tribunal awarded £14,147 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #redundancy
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #strike-out
- #disability-not-established
- #race-discrimination-out-of-time
- #sex-discrimination-failed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Management Accountant from 1 January 2017 until dismissal on 6 August 2020.
- The claimant was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) after returning from maternity leave.
- The respondent initiated a redundancy process in July 2020, and the claimant was selected for redundancy after scoring lower than a male colleague.
- The respondent's response was struck out due to unreasonable conduct and non-compliance with tribunal orders.
- The tribunal found the PIP process grossly unfair and that it materially affected the redundancy selection.
- The claimant's claims for race discrimination, sex discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a Management Accountant.
-
Maternity leave start
Claimant went on maternity leave.
-
Return from maternity leave
Claimant returned to work after maternity leave.
-
First performance concerns meeting
Claimant was told her work was unsatisfactory and warned of a PIP.
-
Informal PIP meeting
Claimant attended an informal PIP meeting; she requested support and flexible working.
-
Work from home request refused
Claimant's request to work from home was refused; a white colleague was allowed.
-
Formal PIP started
Claimant was told informal PIP had failed and formal PIP would begin.
-
First written warning
Claimant received a first written warning under the PIP.
-
Last PIP meeting
Final PIP meeting before furlough.
-
Furlough start
Claimant was placed on furlough.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant and a male colleague were placed at risk of redundancy.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the redundancy selection process was fair, given that the claimant's performance improvement plan (PIP) was allegedly biased and influenced her selection for redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the respondent's response due to unreasonable conduct and non-compliance, then proceeded to find the dismissal unfair. The PIP was deemed grossly unfair, and it tainted the redundancy scoring.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £1,614 (offset by statutory redundancy payment, so £0)
- Compensatory award: £14,147 (including loss of salary, pension contributions, and loss of statutory rights)
- No Polkey reduction or contributory fault applied.
Lessons & takeaways
- Performance improvement plans must be fair and transparent; any unfairness can undermine a subsequent redundancy process.
- Employers should ensure redundancy selection criteria are objective and not influenced by prior performance issues that were handled unfairly.
- If an employer fails to comply with tribunal orders, their response may be struck out, leading to a default judgment on liability.
- Employees with less than two years' service may still bring unfair dismissal claims if the reason is automatically unfair, but here the claimant had over three years' service.
When a performance plan taints a redundancy
This case shows how a poorly handled performance improvement plan (PIP) can infect an otherwise legitimate redundancy process. The claimant, a management accountant with three years' service, returned from maternity leave to find herself on a PIP that the tribunal later described as 'grossly unfair'. The PIP process included a refusal of flexible working requests and a lack of proper support, which ultimately affected her scoring in the redundancy selection.
What the employer did wrong
Muji Europe Holdings Ltd could have avoided this outcome by ensuring the PIP was conducted fairly and that the redundancy selection was based on objective criteria independent of the PIP. Instead, the tribunal found that the PIP was used to disadvantage the claimant, and the redundancy scoring was directly influenced by the unfair PIP. The employer's failure to comply with tribunal orders also led to their response being struck out, meaning they could not defend the claim.
Why this matters
For employees, this case highlights the importance of challenging unfair performance management processes early. For employers, it serves as a reminder that redundancy selection must be transparent and free from bias. The award of £14,147 reflects the claimant's losses, but the real lesson is procedural: fairness at every stage is essential to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Disability discrimination claim based on mother's disability struck out
A tribunal struck out a former employee's claim that she was discriminated against because of her caring responsibilities for her disabled mother, ruling that section 15 of the Equality Act does not cover discrimination by association.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
Cleaner's redundancy claim struck out after being presented too late
A cleaner who was made redundant after her employer lost two cleaning contracts had her unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims struck out because she presented them to the tribunal more than three months after her dismissal.