Redundancy dismissal upheld: how a small employer handled pandemic restructuring fairly
A Watford tribunal found that Flitetec Ltd fairly dismissed a senior sales account manager for redundancy after losing 70% of its revenue during the pandemic. The claim was dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Senior Sales Account Manager from March 2018 to June 2021.
- The respondent lost about 70% of its revenue due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The claimant was the only sales employee in the manufacturing division at the time of redundancy.
- The respondent consulted with the claimant over three meetings in June 2021 before deciding to dismiss.
- The claimant declined an offer to apply for a lower-paid Sales Executive role.
- The tribunal found redundancy was the sole reason for dismissal and the process was fair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as Senior Sales Account Manager.
-
Furloughed due to pandemic
Claimant was furloughed under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
-
Ms B dismissed
The respondent's other salesperson, Ms B, was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Flexible furlough
Claimant moved to flexible furlough to undertake some work.
-
Five staff made redundant
Respondent made five assembly staff redundant.
-
At risk meeting
Claimant informed his role was at risk of redundancy.
-
Second consultation meeting
Further consultation meeting held.
-
Final consultation meeting
Last consultation meeting; claimant declined Sales Executive role.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Confidential email discovered
Respondent discovered claimant had emailed confidential information to himself.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed dismissal and raised grievance; both rejected.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was for the stated reason of redundancy (a potentially fair reason) and whether the respondent acted reasonably in dismissing him for that reason.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. It found that Flitetec Ltd had a genuine redundancy situation due to the pandemic's severe impact on its business.
Key reasons:
- The respondent lost around 70% of its revenue and had already made five other staff redundant.
- The claimant was the only sales employee in the manufacturing division, making him a 'pool of one'.
- The respondent held three consultation meetings, offered an alternative role (Sales Executive), and considered the claimant's appeal.
- The tribunal found the process was reasonable for a small employer of about 14 staff.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Small employers can rely on a 'pool of one' for redundancy selection if the employee's role is unique and the business need for that work has diminished.
- A fair redundancy process does not require multiple pools or lengthy consultation; what matters is genuine consultation and consideration of alternatives.
- Declining a suitable alternative role can weaken a claim that the dismissal was unfair, especially if the role was offered before dismissal.
- Documenting the business impact (e.g., revenue loss) and the consultation steps is crucial to defending a redundancy dismissal.
What this case shows
The COVID-19 pandemic forced many small businesses to restructure quickly. This case illustrates how a tribunal assesses fairness when a small employer makes a single employee redundant. The senior sales account manager had only three years' service, and his role was the only sales position in the manufacturing division. After losing 70% of revenue, Flitetec Ltd decided that the role was no longer needed.
The claimant argued that the redundancy was a sham and that the real reason was something else. But the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the pandemic had devastated its business, leading to a genuine redundancy situation. The fact that the claimant was the only salesperson in that division meant he was a 'pool of one' – a legitimate approach when there is no one else doing the same work.
What the employer did right
Flitetec Ltd followed a structured process: three consultation meetings, an offer of a lower-paid Sales Executive role (which the claimant declined), and an appeal hearing. For a small employer with limited HR resources, this was considered reasonable. The tribunal noted that the respondent had already made five other staff redundant, showing a consistent approach to the crisis.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals look at the overall reasonableness of the employer's actions, not whether they could have done something differently. The claimant's solicitor argued that the consultation was too short and that the pool should have been wider. But the tribunal found that the employer's size and the urgency of the situation justified the approach. Employees in similar situations should note that declining a suitable alternative role can significantly weaken a claim – and that a genuine redundancy, even in a small pool, can be fair if properly handled.
Similar cases
Redundancy during Covid-19: charity's restructure was genuine
A Masjid Liaison Officer made redundant after his charity changed its business model due to the pandemic has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and the process fair.
Panel beater dismissed in redundancy: small employer's 'pool of one' upheld
A Watford tribunal has ruled that a panel beater with three years' service was fairly dismissed when his employer, a four-person car repair shop, made him redundant as the only employee at risk. The decision highlights how small employers can follow a lighter process.
Redundancy during maternity leave: unfair dismissal but no compensation
An English & Maths Community Coordinator with 9 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Birmingham Metropolitan College during maternity leave, but the tribunal awarded no compensation due to a 100% Polkey reduction.
Redundancy dismissal of senior scientist: pool of one and consultation found fair
A senior research scientist with 11 years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after his employer restructured. The tribunal found the redundancy process, including a pool of one, was fair.