18-year employee unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy scoring
A Quality Lead with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Mitie Group Plc used flawed selection criteria and a perfunctory consultation process in a redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £46,933.64.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Quality Lead from 7 January 2002 until dismissal on 31 March 2020.
- The respondent undertook a redundancy exercise as part of a cost-saving transformation programme, reducing the number of Quality Leads from four to three.
- The claimant was placed at risk of redundancy on 4 March 2020 and scored lowest among the four Quality Leads.
- The consultation process was perfunctory; the claimant's queries about scoring were not meaningfully addressed.
- The selection criteria were applied unfairly, including double-counting a letter of concern as a disciplinary sanction.
- The appeal was conducted on paper only and did not properly investigate the claimant's concerns.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started employment with Mitie Limited as a Quality Lead.
-
Stress-related call
Claimant had a tearful call with line manager Mr Plant, citing work overload and stress.
-
Redundancy decision initiated
Mr Colley decided to reduce Quality Leads by one as part of cost savings.
-
Letter of concern issued
Claimant received a letter of concern regarding her performance on the GSK contract, but it was not a formal disciplinary warning.
-
Selection process started
Managers began scoring the four Quality Leads using a selection matrix.
-
At-risk meeting
Claimant and other Quality Leads were informed they were at risk of redundancy; scoring had already been completed.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant was given her scores but no meaningful discussion occurred.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant raised eight queries about scoring and process, but they were not substantively addressed.
-
Final consultation and dismissal
Claimant was informed of her redundancy and given notice of termination.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the redundancy decision.
-
Appeal dismissed
Mr Colley dismissed the appeal after a paper-only review.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for redundancy was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, focusing on whether the respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses in its selection, consultation, and appeal process.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the redundancy process was procedurally flawed. The selection criteria were applied unfairly, including double-counting a letter of concern as a disciplinary sanction, and the consultation was perfunctory with no meaningful engagement. The appeal was also inadequate, being a paper-only review.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £0 (already received a redundancy payment)
- Compensatory award: £46,933.64
- Polkey reduction: 25%
- Final award after deduction of Job Seeker's Allowance: £45,000.54
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure selection criteria are objective, consistently applied, and do not double-count issues like letters of concern as formal disciplinary sanctions.
- Consultation must be meaningful: employees should have the opportunity to discuss and challenge their scores, and their queries must be addressed substantively.
- Appeals should be conducted fairly, with a proper investigation of the employee's concerns, not just a paper review.
- Long-serving employees (18 years in this case) are entitled to a particularly thorough and fair process.
A flawed redundancy process
This case shows how a redundancy exercise that appears straightforward can unravel when the selection process is not fair and transparent. The claimant, a Quality Lead with 18 years' service, was made redundant as part of a cost-saving transformation. But the tribunal found that Mitie Group Plc's approach was fundamentally unfair.
The selection criteria were applied inconsistently. A letter of concern about the claimant's performance was treated as a disciplinary sanction, effectively double-counting it and unfairly lowering her score. The consultation process was perfunctory: the claimant raised eight specific queries about her scores, but these were not meaningfully addressed. The appeal was conducted on paper only, without any proper investigation.
What Mitie could have done differently
Mitie could have avoided this outcome by ensuring the selection criteria were objective and consistently applied. They should have treated the letter of concern as a performance issue, not a disciplinary matter. The consultation should have been a genuine two-way dialogue, with the claimant's concerns taken seriously and answered. A fair appeal process would have involved a face-to-face meeting and a proper review of the scoring.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that even in a genuine redundancy situation, employers must follow a fair process. The tribunal applied a 25% Polkey reduction, reflecting the possibility that the claimant might still have been dismissed even with a fair procedure. But the core finding of unfair dismissal stands, and the compensation of over £46,000 reflects the seriousness of the procedural failings. For employees facing redundancy, this case highlights the importance of challenging flawed scoring and inadequate consultation.
Similar cases
Solicitor made redundant without proper consideration of alternative role at sister firm
A housing solicitor was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to properly consider a possible secondment at a sister firm. The tribunal found a 85% chance that consultation would have led to an alternative role.
Senior VP dismissed by email after missing final redundancy meeting due to mother's appointment
A senior vice-president was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused to reschedule a final redundancy consultation meeting, instead sending a dismissal email when he couldn't attend due to his mother's medical appointment. The tribunal awarded £658.71 in compensation.
21-year assistant manager loses redundancy claim despite long service
An assistant manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring lower than a colleague on selection criteria. The tribunal upheld Boots' process.
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.