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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Senior Compliance Officer and Deputy MLRO from 26 May 2015 to 8 May 2020.
- The respondent planned to restructure the compliance department, reducing headcount from eight to four.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy based on three criteria: cost to business (60%), qualifications (25%), and sickness absence (15%).
- The claimant was scored against the same pay scale as compliance officers, not his senior role, making his selection unfair.
- The respondent withheld information about a new Compliance Manager role for which the claimant could have applied.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded £22,987.92 after a 15% Polkey reduction.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment with the respondent in the compliance department.
-
Confirmed as Senior Compliance Officer and Deputy MLRO
Claimant was formally confirmed in the more senior role after acting up.
-
Redundancy proposal document
Respondent created a document proposing restructure and redundancies, including in compliance.
-
Group consultation meeting
Mr Bojang chaired a group consultation call announcing the proposed restructure and scoring results.
-
First individual consultation meeting
Mr Bojang met with the claimant; claimant asked about redundancy policy and had no alternative suggestions.
-
Second individual consultation meeting
Claimant received his scores and discussed the cost criterion and sickness absence.
-
Third consultation meeting and dismissal decision
Mr Bojang confirmed the claimant would be made redundant; dismissal decision emailed same day.
-
Formal redundancy letter
Claimant received formal letter of redundancy with right to appeal.
-
Employment termination
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Osman; claimant argued unfair selection criteria and lack of consultation.
-
Remedy hearing and judgment
Tribunal awarded £22,987.92 after 15% Polkey reduction.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the redundancy dismissal was unfair due to inadequate warning, inconsistent application of selection criteria, and failure to consider alternative employment.
The outcome
The tribunal decided the dismissal was unfair. The key reasons were: the claimant was scored against the wrong pay scale (using compliance officer rates rather than his senior role), the cost criterion was applied inconsistently, and the respondent withheld information about a new Compliance Manager role for which the claimant could have applied.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £0 (included in compensatory award)
- Compensatory award: £22,487.92
- Polkey reduction: 15%
- Total award: £22,987.92
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure selection criteria are applied consistently and fairly to all employees in the same pool.
- Employees should be scored against their own role's pay scale, not a lower one, to avoid unfairness.
- Employers must proactively inform at-risk employees of suitable alternative vacancies during redundancy consultations.
- A delay in starting consultation, when the decision was made months earlier, can undermine the fairness of the process.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a poorly handled redundancy process can lead to an unfair dismissal finding, even when the employer has a genuine business need to restructure. The claimant, a senior compliance officer with five years' service, was selected for redundancy using criteria that were applied inconsistently. The most significant error was scoring him against the pay scale of more junior compliance officers, rather than his own senior role. This meant the 'cost to business' criterion, which carried 60% weight, was calculated unfairly.
What the respondent could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided the unfairness by ensuring the selection criteria were applied to the correct role. They should have scored the claimant against his own salary, not a lower one. Additionally, they failed to inform him of a new Compliance Manager role that he could have applied for. Proactively communicating alternative vacancies is a key part of a fair redundancy process. The tribunal also noted that the consultation process was rushed, with the decision to restructure made months earlier but not communicated until late April 2020.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals will scrutinise the fairness of selection criteria and their application. Even where a genuine redundancy situation exists, procedural flaws can render the dismissal unfair. The 15% Polkey reduction reflects the possibility that the claimant might still have been dismissed even with a fair process, but the core finding of unfairness stands. Employees in similar situations should note that being scored against the wrong criteria or not being told about suitable alternative roles can be strong grounds for a claim.
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.
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.
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.