Redundancy dismissal upheld: small business restructure after pandemic
An operations manager with 14 years' service was fairly dismissed when her role became redundant after the business automated processes and hired a head of operations. The tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from February 2008 as operations manager.
- The respondent is a small business with 5-9 employees.
- The claimant was furloughed during the pandemic and on return had fewer tasks.
- The respondent introduced automation and a head of operations, reducing the need for the claimant's role.
- The claimant was consulted and offered alternative employment which she refused.
- The appeal was heard by the head of operations who upheld the redundancy decision.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent.
-
First furlough period
Claimant furloughed from March to September 2020.
-
Executive assistant hired
Ms Vignon hired as executive assistant; claimant not informed or considered.
-
Claimant raised concerns
Claimant emailed managing director expressing concern that tasks were being taken away.
-
Second furlough period
Claimant furloughed from December 2020 to May 2021.
-
Head of Operations hired
Mr Coyle recruited to automate processes, reducing claimant's tasks.
-
Review meeting
Meeting where claimant's lack of work and role at risk were discussed.
-
Formal redundancy notice
Claimant notified her role was at risk of redundancy; consultation began.
-
Dismissal
Claimant informed her role was redundant; paid notice and statutory redundancy.
-
ET1 presented
Claimant presented claim of unfair dismissal to tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing her.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The redundancy was genuine: the business had changed after the pandemic, introducing automation and a new head of operations, which reduced the need for the claimant's role.
- The process was fair for a small business: the claimant was consulted, offered alternative employment (which she refused), and had an appeal heard by the head of operations.
- While the claimant was not considered for an executive assistant role hired earlier, the tribunal accepted that this was a separate role for a different purpose.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation can arise from business changes like automation, even if the business is not in financial difficulty.
- Small businesses (under 10 employees) may have more flexibility in redundancy processes, but must still consult and consider alternatives.
- If you refuse a suitable alternative role, you may lose the chance to argue unfair dismissal.
- The appeal process should be conducted by someone independent of the original decision, but in a small business this may be the same person if no alternative exists.
When a role disappears after business changes
This case shows how a small business can fairly make an employee redundant when its needs change, even after long service. The claimant had worked for V-Tech Ltd for 14 years as operations manager. During the pandemic, she was furloughed twice. On her return, the managing director had already hired an executive assistant to support him, and later recruited a head of operations to automate processes. These changes meant the claimant's tasks were significantly reduced.
The tribunal accepted that the redundancy was genuine. The business was not in financial trouble, but the managing director had decided to restructure to become more efficient. This is a legitimate business decision, and tribunals will not second-guess it as long as it is not a sham.
What the employer did right
V-Tech Ltd followed a reasonable process for a small employer (5-9 employees). The claimant was told her role was at risk, consulted, and offered an alternative role. She refused it. She then had an appeal heard by the head of operations, who had been involved in the original decision. While this is not ideal, the tribunal accepted that in a very small business there may be no one else to hear the appeal.
The tribunal noted that the claimant was not considered for the executive assistant role hired earlier. However, this was a different role created for a different purpose, and the claimant had not been in the business at the time. The tribunal found this did not make the dismissal unfair.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who believe their redundancy is unfair should check whether the employer genuinely needed to reduce the workforce and whether a fair process was followed. In small businesses, the process may be less formal, but employers must still consult and consider alternatives. Refusing a suitable alternative role can weaken a claim. The outcome here also shows that long service does not automatically make a redundancy unfair if the business case is solid.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal upheld after employee refused selection interviews
A Client Account Manager with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after refusing to attend selection interviews and declining an alternative role. The tribunal upheld the dismissal by a majority, finding the redundancy genuine and the process reasonable.
Redundancy selection scoring upheld: fair process and consultation saved the day
A Heating Sales Advisor with five years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after a tribunal found that British Gas Services Limited followed a fair redundancy process, including collective consultation, objective scoring, and a proper appeal.
CCTV operatives made redundant: fair dismissal after consultation and alternative roles offered
Three long-serving CCTV operatives who refused to apply for ringfenced Community Guardian roles were fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal upheld the employer's consultation process and offer of alternative employment.
Senior Supervisor selected for redundancy after appraisal re-done without his input
A Senior Supervisor with 3.5 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer re-did his performance appraisal without consulting him, then failed to provide evidence of the appeal process. The tribunal awarded £16,211.91.