Accounts manager made redundant without being offered available part-time role
An accounts manager with 15 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to offer her a part-time role that became available during her notice period. The tribunal awarded £250 for loss of statutory rights.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #polkey-deduction
- #failure-to-offer-alternative-role
- #covid-19-impact
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Accounts Manager from 2006 until 2021.
- The respondent made the claimant redundant due to cost reductions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The respondent failed to offer the claimant a part-time Reservations Executive role that became available during her notice period.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent assumed the claimant would not be interested in the role without consulting her.
- The tribunal found that the claimant would not have accepted the role if offered, resulting in a 100% Polkey deduction.
- The claimant was awarded £250 for loss of statutory rights.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work for predecessor
Claimant began working as a Steward for Orient Express Limited, predecessor of the respondent, on a casual basis.
-
Claimant became Boutique Manager
Claimant became Manager of the Boutique on board the train, and her continuous employment was recorded from this date.
-
Claimant became Accounts Manager
Claimant was promoted to Accounts Manager, based in Nantwich, with a salary of £29,614.92.
-
COVID-19 pandemic impact
The respondent cancelled all trips and placed most employees, including the claimant, on furlough.
-
Voluntary redundancy offered
The respondent wrote to employees offering voluntary redundancy; the claimant expressed interest but later declined due to insufficient payment.
-
At risk letter sent
Mr Susans wrote to the claimant informing her she was at risk of redundancy and arranging a consultation meeting.
-
Consultation meeting
A consultation meeting was held via Zoom; the claimant and Ms McNamee attended jointly. The meeting was partially recorded.
-
Redundancy confirmed
The claimant was informed in writing that she would be made redundant, with notice ending on 21 May 2021.
-
Part-time role advertised
The respondent advertised a part-time Reservations Executive role at £17,000 pro rata; the claimant did not apply.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment officially ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in failing to offer the claimant an available alternative role during her redundancy notice period, and whether the dismissal was therefore unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the employer did not consider her for a part-time Reservations Executive role that became available during her notice period. The employer assumed she would not be interested without asking her.
However, the tribunal also found that even if the role had been offered, the claimant would not have accepted it due to the significant drop in salary. This resulted in a 100% Polkey deduction, meaning no compensation for loss of earnings.
- Basic award: £0 (not applicable due to Polkey)
- Compensatory award: £0 (100% Polkey deduction)
- Loss of statutory rights: £250
- Total award: £250
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must actively consider employees at risk of redundancy for any suitable alternative vacancies, even if they think the employee might not be interested.
- A failure to consult about an available alternative role can make a redundancy dismissal unfair, even if the employee would not have accepted it.
- Polkey deductions can reduce compensation to zero if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway even with a fair process.
- Length of service (15 years here) does not automatically increase compensation if the employee would not have accepted an alternative role.
When a redundancy process goes wrong
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward redundancy can become unfair when an employer fails to consider an employee for an available alternative role. The accounts manager had worked for the company for 15 years, but during her notice period a part-time Reservations Executive role was advertised. The employer did not offer it to her, assuming she would not be interested because of the lower salary.
The tribunal found this assumption was unreasonable. The employer should have consulted the claimant about the role before making a decision. This procedural failure made the dismissal unfair, even though the redundancy reason itself was genuine.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding simply by discussing the part-time role with the claimant during the consultation process. A brief conversation would have established her interest (or lack thereof) and made the process fair. Instead, by making an assumption, they created a procedural flaw that led to a finding of unfair dismissal.
Why the result matters
Although the claimant won her case, the compensation was minimal – just £250 for loss of statutory rights. This is because the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey deduction, finding that even if the role had been offered, she would not have accepted it due to the salary drop from £29,614 to £17,000 pro rata. This illustrates that a successful unfair dismissal claim does not always result in significant compensation, especially if the employee would have been dismissed anyway.
For employees, this case is a reminder that procedural fairness matters, but the financial outcome may be limited if the tribunal concludes that the dismissal was inevitable. For employers, it highlights the importance of consulting about all available alternatives during a redundancy process.
Similar cases
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
Cleaner unfairly dismissed after employer went into liquidation
A cleaner was unfairly dismissed when her employer went into liquidation without following any redundancy procedure. The tribunal awarded £14,522 in compensation, reduced by 50% for the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Long-serving employee unfairly dismissed in redundancy without notice
A Cardiff tribunal found that MB Evans Limited unfairly dismissed a 25-year employee without notice during a redundancy. The employee was awarded £21,936 in compensation.
Redundancy dismissal found unfair but 100% Polkey deduction applied
A former employee with 12 years' service was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, but a 100% Polkey deduction meant no compensatory award. The tribunal awarded £4,362.20 for redundancy, unpaid wages, holiday pay, and other losses.