Materials handler wins unfair dismissal claim after sham redundancy process
A materials handler with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer ran a sham redundancy process and ignored his caring responsibilities. The tribunal awarded £3,297.40.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #consultation-failure
- #predetermination
- #sham-process
- #caring-responsibilities
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a materials handler from 22 January 2018 until 27 November 2020.
- The respondent decided to reduce materials handlers from two to one due to a decline in sales and later delivery patterns.
- The claimant was unwilling to change his working hours due to caring commitments for elderly relatives.
- The tribunal found that the redundancy process was a sham and the decision to dismiss was predetermined.
- The respondent failed to keep proper notes of consultation meetings and did not consider alternatives adequately.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a materials handler at FMS Foils Group Ltd.
-
Furlough started
Claimant was placed on furlough due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
-
Staffing review
Mr Barnes prepared a scoring matrix for all staff; eight employees were made redundant.
-
Email about putting claimant at risk
Ms Suttie emailed Mr Barnes referencing 'putting Alf at risk'.
-
Early October meeting (disputed)
Respondent claims they met claimant to discuss redundancy; claimant disputes timing.
-
At risk letter
Claimant received letter placing him at risk of redundancy.
-
Consultation meeting
Meeting with claimant, Mr Mackenzie, Mr Barnes and Ms Suttie; claimant refused shift change.
-
Final meeting and dismissal
Claimant offered alternative hours (10am-6pm) but refused; dismissed with redundancy payment.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Full merits hearing
Tribunal heard evidence on unfair dismissal claim.
-
Judgment
Tribunal found dismissal unfair; remedy hearing listed.
-
Remedy hearing
Compensation agreed at £3,297.40.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for redundancy was fair, focusing on whether the redundancy process was genuine or a sham, and whether the employer properly considered alternatives to dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The redundancy process was a sham: the decision to dismiss was made before proper consultation, and the employer failed to keep adequate notes or consider alternatives, such as adjusting hours to accommodate the claimant's caring responsibilities.
Compensation was agreed at £3,297.40. No breakdown was provided.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct a genuine redundancy process, including proper consultation and consideration of alternatives, not just go through the motions.
- Caring responsibilities are a relevant factor when considering alternative working arrangements during a redundancy process.
- Failure to keep proper notes of consultation meetings can undermine an employer's case at tribunal.
- Employees with caring commitments should raise them clearly and in writing during redundancy consultations.
A redundancy process that was a sham
This case shows what happens when an employer decides on a redundancy outcome before consulting the employee. The materials handler, who had worked for FMS Foils Group Limited for nearly three years, was told his role was at risk after the company decided to reduce materials handlers from two to one. But the tribunal found that the decision to dismiss him was already made before any proper consultation took place.
The employer claimed they met with the claimant in early October 2020, but the tribunal doubted this happened. When the formal at-risk letter arrived on 27 October, the process was already flawed. The claimant was unwilling to change his working hours from 6am-2pm to 10am-6pm because he had caring responsibilities for elderly relatives. The employer did not seriously consider this or other alternatives.
What the employer could have done differently
FMS Foils could have kept proper notes of meetings, considered whether the claimant's hours could be adjusted, and genuinely explored alternatives to dismissal. Instead, the process was predetermined: an email from HR in August 2020 already referenced 'putting [the claimant] at risk'. The tribunal concluded the redundancy was a sham.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes must be genuine and fair. Employers cannot simply go through the motions, especially when an employee has caring responsibilities that affect their availability. The award of £3,297.40 reflects the limited service and the fact that the claimant was paid a redundancy payment, but the finding of unfair dismissal is significant for anyone who suspects their employer has already made up its mind.
Similar cases
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
Redundancy dismissal upheld despite disability: Institute of Physics wins tribunal case
A Digital Delivery Manager with multiple sclerosis was fairly dismissed for redundancy, the tribunal ruled, finding a genuine redundancy situation and fair process despite disability discrimination claims.
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.
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.