Freemasons Coordinator dismissed without consultation after 21 years' service
A tribunal found that Manchester Hall Limited unfairly dismissed three employees by email with no consultation or selection process. The age discrimination claims were dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimants were employed by Manchester Hall Limited and dismissed by reason of redundancy on 31 August 2021.
- The respondent did not follow a fair process: no genuine consultation, no discussion of alternatives, and no selection process.
- The claimants received statutory redundancy payments and notice pay from the Insolvency Service.
- The company entered voluntary liquidation on 7 October 2021.
- The age discrimination claims were dismissed for lack of evidence.
Timeline
-
Mrs Casey commenced employment
Mrs Casey started working as a Freemasons Coordinator.
-
Claimants placed on furlough
All three claimants were placed on furlough due to the pandemic.
-
Dismissal by email
The claimants received emails dismissing them by reason of redundancy, effective immediately.
-
Liquidators appointed
Manchester Hall Limited entered voluntary liquidation.
-
Hearing and judgment
Employment Judge Anderson held a hearing via CVP and found the dismissals unfair but dismissed age discrimination claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employees were unfairly dismissed due to a flawed redundancy process and whether their age was a factor in the dismissals.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that all three employees were unfairly dismissed. The employer sent dismissal emails with immediate effect, without any consultation or discussion of alternatives, and without a proper selection process. The age discrimination claims were dismissed due to lack of evidence.
- No additional compensation was awarded because the employees had already received statutory redundancy payments and notice pay from the Insolvency Service.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even when a company is in financial difficulty, a fair redundancy process is still required, including consultation and objective selection criteria.
- Sending dismissal emails without any prior discussion or warning is almost certain to be found unfair.
- Employees with long service (21 years in this case) are entitled to a proper process, and the employer's failure to follow it can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal even if no extra compensation is payable.
- Age discrimination claims require evidence that age was a factor; simply being older and made redundant is not enough.
This case shows what can happen when an employer treats redundancy as a quick administrative task rather than a fair process. The Freemasons Coordinator, along with two colleagues, had worked for Manchester Hall Limited for many years — one for over two decades. When the company decided to make them redundant during the pandemic, it sent each of them an email with immediate effect. There was no meeting, no discussion of alternatives like reduced hours or redeployment, and no objective selection criteria.
The tribunal found this fell far short of the legal standard. A fair redundancy process requires genuine consultation, a reasonable warning, and a fair basis for selection. The employer did none of these. The fact that the company entered voluntary liquidation shortly afterwards did not excuse the lack of process.
What the employer could have done differently
Even in difficult financial circumstances, the employer could have held meetings with the employees to explain the situation, explore alternatives, and agree a fair selection method. A proper process would not have prevented the redundancies, but it would have made them fair — and avoided the tribunal's finding of unfair dismissal.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that the redundancy process matters as much as the outcome. Employees who are dismissed without any consultation or warning may have a claim for unfair dismissal, even if they receive statutory redundancy pay. The fact that no extra compensation was awarded here does not diminish the legal principle: a fair process is a legal right, not an optional extra.
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.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
Redundancy dismissal timed just before 55th birthday: unfair dismissal over pension loss
An Arrears and Investigations Manager with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Slough Borough Council failed to consult properly and timed her redundancy 17 days before her 55th birthday, costing her pension access. Tribunal awarded £60,625.84.
Security officer unfairly dismissed in redundancy but age bias claim fails
A security officer was unfairly dismissed by Amberstone Security Limited in a flawed redundancy process, but his age discrimination claim was rejected. He was awarded £5,807.14, but also ordered to pay £1,796.26 in costs.