Redundancy dismissal upheld: fair process despite pandemic pressures

A redundancy case shaped by the pandemic

This case shows how a well-structured redundancy process can withstand scrutiny, even when carried out under the extreme pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic. The claimant, a goods receiving/storekeeper with nearly four years' service, was placed on furlough when the respondent closed its airport lounges. When it became clear that the business needed to reduce its workforce by 80 full-time equivalents, the claimant was selected for redundancy after scoring lowest in a selection matrix.

The tribunal noted that the respondent had consulted with elected employee representatives, agreed the selection criteria, and held individual meetings with the claimant to discuss his scores and potential alternatives. When the claimant raised concerns about his performance review, the respondent agreed to use an earlier review, which improved his score but still left him at the bottom of the pool.

What the employer did right

The key to the respondent's success was its adherence to a fair process. It warned the claimant of potential redundancy, consulted both collectively and individually, considered alternatives, and offered a right of appeal. The appeal was heard by a different manager who considered the claimant's complaints and found no evidence of bias or manipulation. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, meaning another reasonable employer could have done the same.

What this means for similar claims

For employees, this case is a reminder that redundancy is a fair reason for dismissal if handled properly. Even long-serving employees can be made redundant if their role is no longer needed and the selection process is objective and transparent. For employers, the lesson is clear: invest time in consultation, keep records, and ensure appeals are genuine. A fair process is the best defence against an unfair dismissal claim.