33-year rail operative unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring ignored disability-related role change
A rail operative with 33 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when a redundancy skills matrix penalised him for skills that had lapsed due to a disability-related move. Tribunal awards £100,250.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #redundancy-selection
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #trade-union-membership
- #skills-matrix
- #multi-skilling
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a rail operative from 1987 until dismissal on 7 September 2020.
- He had heart conditions (SVT and IHD) and was found disabled from 3 August to 16 October 2020.
- After heart surgery in 2014, he was moved to a less physically demanding rail loft role.
- The respondent conducted a redundancy exercise using a skills matrix that only considered current active skills.
- The claimant scored low because his previous skills had lapsed due to his disability-related role change.
- The tribunal found unfair dismissal and disability discrimination but rejected the claim of trade union discrimination.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a rail operative.
-
Diagnosed with SVT
Claimant diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia.
-
Diagnosed with IHD
Claimant diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease.
-
Heart bypass surgery
Claimant underwent double heart bypass surgery.
-
Moved to rail loft role
Claimant permanently transferred to rail loft as a Rail Loadout Operator due to disability.
-
At-risk letter
Claimant notified he was at risk of redundancy.
-
Dismissed
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal against dismissal dismissed; awarded two extra points but still low.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
-
Remedy judgment
Award of £100,250.15 including injury to feelings and loss of earnings.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, whether the dismissal was due to trade union membership or activities, and whether the respondent discriminated against him because of his disability or failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the respondent had discriminated against him because of his disability. The claim of trade union discrimination was rejected.
The key reasons were:
- The redundancy selection matrix only scored current active skills, ignoring that the claimant's previous skills had lapsed because he was moved to a less physical role due to his disability.
- This amounted to a failure to make reasonable adjustments and direct disability discrimination.
- The dismissal was unfair because the selection process was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Compensation:
- Total award: £100,250.15
- This includes injury to feelings and loss of earnings (no further breakdown provided).
Lessons & takeaways
- When selecting for redundancy, employers must ensure that scoring criteria do not indirectly penalise employees for disability-related adjustments.
- A skills matrix that only considers current active skills may be discriminatory if it fails to account for lapsed skills due to a reasonable adjustment.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process that takes into account their full work history, especially where disability has affected their role.
- Employers should consider whether the redundancy pool or scoring system needs to be adjusted to avoid disadvantaging disabled employees.
A redundancy process that overlooked disability
A rail operative with 33 years' service was made redundant after a skills matrix scored him low because his previous skills had lapsed. However, those skills had lapsed only because he had been moved to a less physical role as a reasonable adjustment for his heart condition. The tribunal found that the employer, Hanson Quarry Products (Europe) Ltd, had unfairly dismissed him and discriminated against him because of his disability.
The case highlights a common pitfall in redundancy selection: using a rigid scoring system that fails to account for an employee's disability-related history. The claimant had worked as a rail operative since 1987, but after heart bypass surgery in 2014, he was permanently moved to a rail loft role. When a redundancy exercise was conducted in 2020, the respondent used a skills matrix that only considered current active skills. Because the claimant had not used his previous skills for years, he scored low and was selected for redundancy.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal noted that the respondent could have adjusted the matrix to reflect the claimant's previous skills or considered that his role change was disability-related. Instead, they applied a one-size-fits-all approach that effectively penalised him for the reasonable adjustment made earlier. The tribunal also rejected a claim of trade union discrimination, but the disability discrimination and unfair dismissal findings were clear.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes must be fair and non-discriminatory. Employers should review their selection criteria to ensure they do not inadvertently disadvantage disabled employees who have been moved to different roles as a reasonable adjustment. For employees, it shows that long service and a disability-related role change can be strong factors in challenging a redundancy dismissal.
Similar cases
Lecturer with 25 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring penalised disability-related absence
A lecturer with 25 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when his college used a redundancy scoring matrix that penalised him for disability-related sickness absence. The tribunal awarded £89,760.25.
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Dismissed after 10-month absence: employer's reasonable adjustments were enough
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of an assistant branch manager with 28 years' service who was absent for 10 months with anxiety. The employer had offered multiple adjustments but the claimant insisted on a customer ban.