Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #performance-appraisal
- #caste-discrimination
- #race-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #whistleblowing
- #unfair-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Electrical Engineer/Supervisor from 20 February 2012 to 31 July 2020.
- The claimant is Tamil and belongs to the Shudra caste.
- The respondent accepted that Tamils are an ethnic group within the Equality Act 2010.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's Shudra caste did not fall within 'ethnic origins' under the Equality Act 2010.
- The claimant was made redundant due to a downturn in projects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to lack of transparency in the selection process.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as Engineering Group Supervisor (grade 27) at Bechtel Ltd.
-
Promotion recommendation
Rajesh recommended claimant for promotion to grade 28, but Paul Hayes decided not to proceed due to calibration rating.
-
Performance system changed
New performance assessment system introduced with Organisational Impact Rating and calibration.
-
First grievance raised
Claimant raised grievance alleging unfair 2018 performance assessment and race/caste discrimination.
-
Manhour planning started
Rajesh began planning manhours for Reliance project, indicating claimant's work would end in April.
-
Second grievance raised
Claimant submitted second grievance alleging retaliation for first grievance.
-
Notice of removal from Reliance
Claimant told his assignment on Reliance project would end on 17 April 2020.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant informed he was at risk of redundancy due to pandemic-related downturn.
-
Notice of redundancy
Claimant given notice of redundancy; employment terminated on 31 July 2020.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy, and whether he had been discriminated against because of his Tamil ethnicity or Shudra caste, victimised for raising grievances, or subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the redundancy selection process lacked transparency. However, all other claims were dismissed:
- Race discrimination: The tribunal accepted that Tamils are an ethnic group but found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of his race.
- Caste discrimination: The tribunal ruled that 'Shudra' caste does not fall within 'ethnic origins' under the Equality Act 2010.
- Victimisation and whistleblowing: The grievances and disclosures were not shown to have caused any detriment or dismissal.
- Unfair dismissal: The redundancy was genuine, but the selection process was not transparent enough to be reasonable. No compensation was awarded as the claimant would have been dismissed anyway in a fair process.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure redundancy selection criteria and scoring are transparent and clearly communicated to employees.
- Caste is not currently protected under the Equality Act 2010 unless it can be linked to ethnic origins.
- Raising grievances does not automatically protect an employee from redundancy if the process is otherwise fair.
- A genuine redundancy situation can still lead to an unfair dismissal finding if the process lacks transparency.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of transparency in redundancy processes, even when the reason for redundancy is genuine. The claimant, a senior electrical engineer with eight years' service, was made redundant during the COVID-19 pandemic when projects dried up. The tribunal accepted that the downturn was real, but found that Bechtel Ltd did not explain how it selected employees for redundancy. Without clear criteria or a visible scoring system, the dismissal was unfair.
What the losing side could have done differently
Bechtel could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by documenting its selection process and sharing it with employees. A simple matrix of objective criteria (e.g., skills, experience, performance) and a meeting to explain the scores would likely have made the dismissal fair. The company also failed to call any witnesses, which weakened its case.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy does not give employers a free pass. Even in a genuine redundancy situation, the process must be reasonable. For employees, it shows that a lack of transparency can be enough to win an unfair dismissal claim, even if other discrimination claims fail. However, the claimant received no compensation because the tribunal found he would have been dismissed anyway in a fair process—a common outcome known as a 'Polkey reduction'.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.