Area supervisor dismissed after restructure: consultation would have been futile
An area supervisor with 10 months' service was fairly dismissed for some other substantial reason after a restructure, despite procedural flaws, because further consultation would have been futile.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #some-other-substantial-reason
- #reorganisation
- #futility-of-consultation
- #appeal-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant transferred to the respondent on 1 April 2020 under TUPE.
- The respondent restructured due to Covid-19 and poor performance on the Hampshire contract.
- The claimant was offered and accepted a role in Reading but complained and threatened to go sick.
- The claimant was dismissed on 19 February 2021 for unwillingness to adapt.
- The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, not redundancy.
- The tribunal held the dismissal was fair despite procedural flaws because further consultation would have been futile.
Timeline
-
Transfer to respondent
The claimant's employment transferred from Nviro to YBC Cleaning Services Ltd under TUPE.
-
First restructure meeting
Meeting with Regional Manager Jamie Salmon to discuss options including promotion.
-
Second restructure meeting
Further discussions; claimant decided to remain as Area Supervisor.
-
Updated job description
Claimant's area increased from 47 to 103 sites in Hampshire.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant complained about being checked up on, told to work while sick, and being pushed out.
-
Grievance meeting
Meeting chaired by Jamie Salmon; claimant confirmed concerns settled.
-
Started Reading role
Claimant began a role in Reading closer to home after complaining about long hours.
-
Notice of redundancy letter
Claimant sent text saying she was unwell; respondent issued redundancy notice.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment terminated.
-
Meeting with Commercial Director
Claimant met John Naldrett; he explained the restructure decision.
-
Termination letter
Letter confirming redundancy and offering Area Manager role.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant notified intention to appeal.
-
Appeal hearing
Heard by Managing Director Yogen Chhetri; claimant did not seek reinstatement.
-
Tribunal hearing
Full merits hearing before Employment Judge Moss.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, considering whether the reason for dismissal was a potentially fair reason (some other substantial reason) and whether the employer acted reasonably in treating it as sufficient.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
The key reason was that the dismissal was for 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR) — the restructure and the claimant's unwillingness to adapt — not redundancy. Although the employer's consultation process was flawed, the tribunal found that further consultation would have been futile because the claimant had already rejected alternative roles and threatened to go sick.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short-service employees have fewer rights: with less than two years' service, the main protection is against automatically unfair dismissal or discrimination.
- Employers can rely on 'some other substantial reason' (SOSR) for dismissals arising from business restructures that don't fit traditional redundancy.
- If an employee refuses reasonable alternative roles and threatens to go sick, a tribunal may find further consultation futile.
- Procedural flaws don't automatically make a dismissal unfair if the outcome would have been the same anyway.
A restructure that led to dismissal
This case shows how a business restructure, driven by the Covid-19 pandemic and performance issues, can lead to a fair dismissal even when the employer's process is not perfect. The claimant, an area supervisor with only 10 months' service, was dismissed after she refused to accept changes to her role and threatened to go sick. The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was not redundancy but 'some other substantial reason' — the restructure and her unwillingness to adapt.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer's consultation was flawed: it did not formally notify the claimant that she was at risk of redundancy or follow a full redundancy process. However, the tribunal noted that the employer had held meetings, offered alternative roles, and tried to accommodate the claimant's preferences. The claimant had already rejected a role in Reading and complained about her workload. Given her attitude, the tribunal concluded that further consultation would have been futile — a key factor in finding the dismissal fair.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that short-service employees (under two years) have limited unfair dismissal rights. It also highlights that tribunals will consider whether a dismissal was 'some other substantial reason' when a restructure doesn't fit the traditional redundancy definition. For employees, the lesson is that refusing reasonable alternative roles and threatening to go sick can undermine a later claim of unfair dismissal. For employers, it shows that while procedural flaws can be overlooked if they would not have changed the outcome, it is still safer to follow a proper process.
Similar cases
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Kitchen manager dismissed without consultation in redundancy: unfair dismissal
A kitchen manager with two years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without any consultation or warning. The tribunal awarded £4,809.49 in compensation.
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
University academic unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation over retained post
A University of Leicester academic was unfairly dismissed when the university failed to properly consult on redundancy selection after changing its proposal to retain a permanent post. The tribunal awarded £72,487.50 in compensation.