President EMEA made redundant without consultation during pandemic: unfair dismissal
A senior executive with six years' service was dismissed for redundancy without any consultation or fair procedure, winning over £56,000 in compensation.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as President EMEA from 15 May 2014 until 30 October 2020.
- The respondent faced financial difficulties due to the Boeing 737 Max grounding and the Covid-19 pandemic.
- The claimant was placed on standdown and later furlough without his express written agreement.
- The claimant was dismissed for redundancy without any prior consultation or fair procedure.
- The tribunal found that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event after four weeks of consultation.
- The respondent made a statutory redundancy payment of £4,842 which was set off against the basic award.
Timeline
-
ExCo agrees standdown
The respondent's executive committee agreed to stand down staff across the company to save costs.
-
Claimant notified of standdown
The claimant was sent a letter stating he would be stood down from 23 March 2020, with reduced pay.
-
Claimant placed on furlough
The claimant was informed he was on total standdown to access the UK furlough scheme, without his agreement.
-
Decision to make claimant redundant
Mr Nordstrom and the Board decided to make the claimant redundant due to insufficient work.
-
Meeting with Mr Nordstrom
Mr Nordstrom met with the claimant to discuss his departure; no notes were taken by the respondent.
-
Claimant appeals redundancy
The claimant appealed the redundancy decision, citing unfair selection and lack of consultation.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment ended.
-
Final merits hearing (day 1)
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on liability and Polkey.
-
Final merits hearing (day 2)
The hearing continued; written submissions were later provided.
-
Remedy and reconsideration hearing
The tribunal heard submissions on remedy and the claimant's reconsideration application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy and whether the respondent made unlawful deductions from his wages by placing him on furlough without his agreement.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy. The respondent had made the decision to dismiss without any prior consultation or fair procedure, which fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
However, the tribunal applied a Polkey reduction, finding that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event after four weeks of consultation. The compensation was therefore limited to four weeks' loss of earnings.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £4,842.00
- Compensatory award: £4,298.20
- Unlawful deduction from wages: £47,282.04
- Total: £56,422.24
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must carry out a fair redundancy consultation before dismissing an employee, even in a crisis.
- Placing an employee on furlough without their written agreement can amount to an unlawful deduction from wages.
- A Polkey reduction can limit compensation if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway after a fair process.
- Length of service and seniority do not excuse a lack of consultation; all employees are entitled to a fair procedure.
What this case shows in practice
The claimant, President EMEA for Burrana Limited, had six years' service when the company faced severe financial difficulties due to the Boeing 737 Max grounding and the Covid-19 pandemic. Without any consultation, the executive committee decided to make him redundant. He was told of the decision in a meeting with the CEO, and his employment ended four months later.
The tribunal found that the company had not followed any fair procedure. There was no consultation, no warning, and no consideration of alternatives. The decision was already made before any discussion with the claimant. This was a clear failure of the employer's duty to act reasonably.
What the losing side could have done differently
Burrana Limited could have avoided this outcome by conducting a proper redundancy consultation. Even in a crisis, employers must engage with employees at risk of redundancy, consider alternatives, and follow a fair process. The company also made a costly mistake by placing the claimant on furlough without his written agreement, which led to a successful claim for unlawful deduction of wages.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant would have been dismissed anyway after four weeks of consultation, so the compensatory award was limited. But the total compensation of over £56,000 still represents a significant penalty for the procedural failures.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the redundancy process must be fair, regardless of the employee's seniority or the employer's financial pressures. The claimant's six years of service meant that a reasonable employer would have given him a proper opportunity to respond to the proposal. The lack of any consultation was fatal to the employer's case.
For employees facing redundancy, this case shows that even when a business is struggling, the right to a fair procedure remains. If an employer cuts corners, the dismissal is likely to be unfair, and compensation may be awarded for the loss of the chance to argue for alternatives.
Similar cases
Garden centre staff dismissed without warning: redundancy consultation failure
Four employees of Adrian Hall Ltd were unfairly dismissed when the garden centre closed without any consultation. The tribunal awarded £500 each for loss of continuity.
Pub manager dismissed during pandemic wins £18,000 for unpaid wages and holiday pay
A public house manager with 17 years' service was made redundant when the pub closed during COVID-19. The tribunal upheld the redundancy but awarded £17,936.55 for National Minimum Wage underpayments, notice pay, and holiday pay.
Sales manager dismissed in flawed redundancy process wins £4,105 after 80% Polkey cut
A 66-year-old sales manager with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy consultation during the pandemic, but the tribunal reduced his compensation by 80% because he would likely have been dismissed anyway.
Library assistant made redundant by email: no consultation, unfair dismissal
A library assistant with 14 years' service was dismissed by email without any warning or consultation. The tribunal awarded £1,301 after finding the dismissal unfair, but reduced compensation by 80% because she would likely have been dismissed anyway.