Sham layoff and failure to consult: production manager wins unfair dismissal and protective award
A production manager with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer closed a factory, laid him off indefinitely, and deliberately kept the redundancy count below 20 to avoid collective consultation. The tribunal awarded over £15,000 plus a protective award of £9,000.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a production manager from 3 December 2007 until 24 January 2022.
- On 12 January 2022, the respondent announced the immediate closure of the Thrapston factory and told 18 employees they were redundant.
- The claimant and two colleagues were told they were laid off indefinitely, but the tribunal found this was a sham and amounted to dismissal.
- The respondent failed to consult individually or collectively about the redundancies.
- The tribunal found the respondent deliberately kept the redundancy count below 20 to avoid collective consultation obligations.
- The claimant was awarded a basic award of £7,616, compensatory award of £7,626.92, and a protective award of £9,000.
Timeline
-
Employment start date
The claimant began working as a production manager for the respondent.
-
Factory closure announced
The respondent told all 23 employees that the Thrapston factory was closing immediately. 18 employees were told they were redundant; the claimant and two others were told to help clear the factory.
-
First redundancies take effect
The 18 employees who were told they were redundant signed resignation documents and left employment.
-
Factory locked
The claimant found the factory locked and was told by a director to wait for a call.
-
Claimant dismissed
The respondent called the claimant and told him he was laid off indefinitely. The tribunal found this was an actual dismissal by reason of redundancy.
-
Claimant's email
The claimant emailed the respondent stating he considered himself dismissed or resigning due to the sham layoff.
-
Offer of work in Devon
The respondent offered the claimant temporary work at its Devon factory, about 250 miles away, which the claimant refused.
-
Alleged new site in Kettering
The respondent claimed to have a new site in Kettering but never provided an address; the tribunal found this was a sham.
-
Hearing day 1
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions. The respondent did not attend.
-
Hearing day 2 and oral judgment
The tribunal gave oral judgment in favour of the claimant, later reconsidered and varied.
-
Reconsideration judgment
Employment Judge Brown issued the reconsideration judgment increasing the protective award to 90 days and adding £500 for loss of statutory rights.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, whether the employer made unauthorised deductions from wages, and whether the employer failed to comply with collective consultation obligations under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The employer announced the closure of its Thrapston factory on 12 January 2022, telling 18 employees they were redundant and the claimant and two others they were 'laid off indefinitely'. The tribunal held this was a sham layoff amounting to dismissal.
The employer failed to consult either individually or collectively about the redundancies. The tribunal found that the employer deliberately kept the redundancy count below 20 to avoid collective consultation obligations under TULCRA. The employer also made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages.
The compensation awarded was:
- Basic award: £7,616.00
- Compensatory award: £7,626.92 (including £500 for loss of statutory rights)
- Unauthorised deductions: £276.92
- Protective award: £9,000.00 (90 days' gross pay) Total: £24,519.84 (including protective award)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are told you are 'laid off' indefinitely when your workplace closes, this may be a dismissal in law – seek advice before accepting it.
- Employers must consult individually and collectively when making 20 or more employees redundant within 90 days; deliberately keeping numbers below 20 to avoid this is unlawful.
- A mobility clause in your contract does not give the employer an unfettered right to move you hundreds of miles, especially if the offer is made after dismissal.
- Keep records of all communications and pay slips – they are crucial evidence if you bring a claim for unauthorised deductions or unfair dismissal.
When a 'layoff' is really a dismissal
This case shows how an employer's attempt to avoid redundancy obligations can backfire. The production manager had worked for Great British Confectionary Group for 14 years when, in January 2022, the company announced the immediate closure of its Thrapston factory. While 18 colleagues were told they were redundant and asked to sign resignation documents, the claimant and two others were told they were 'laid off indefinitely' to help clear the factory. The tribunal found this was a sham – the layoff was actually a dismissal by reason of redundancy.
The employer then made matters worse by failing to consult at all. It did not hold individual meetings or engage in collective consultation, despite making 21 employees redundant in total (18 immediately, plus the claimant and two others). The tribunal found the employer deliberately kept the initial redundancy count below 20 to avoid its legal duties under TULCRA. This is a clear warning: tribunals will look behind the numbers to see if an employer is trying to sidestep the law.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by following basic redundancy procedures. It should have consulted individually with each affected employee, considered alternatives to redundancy, and – because the total number of redundancies exceeded 20 – triggered collective consultation with employee representatives. Instead, it offered the claimant temporary work at a factory 250 miles away, which the tribunal noted was not a genuine offer of suitable alternative employment. The employer also failed to attend the hearing, which meant the tribunal's findings were largely unchallenged.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the protective award under TULCRA can be substantial – here, 90 days' gross pay (£9,000) on top of the unfair dismissal compensation. For employees facing redundancy, the key takeaway is that a 'layoff' may not be what it seems. If your employer closes a site and tells you to wait at home, you may have been dismissed. Keep a diary, save emails, and check whether the employer has consulted properly. If they have not, you may have a claim for unfair dismissal and a protective award.
The total compensation of over £24,500 (including the protective award) reflects the seriousness of the employer's failures. For employees with long service, the basic award alone can be significant – here, £7,616 based on 14 years' service and age-related calculations.
Similar cases
221 workers win maximum protective award after redundancy without any consultation
A tribunal has awarded 221 former employees of SP Group Ltd a protective award of 90 days' pay after the company made them redundant without any collective consultation when it went into administration.
STA Travel failed to consult on redundancies: five employees win protective award
Five former employees of STA Travel Ltd have won a protective award after the company made them redundant without any collective consultation. The tribunal found that the company proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days.
Mass redundancy without employee elections: protective award and multiple breaches
A tribunal found that Elliot House Limited unfairly dismissed most of its workforce in a redundancy process that failed to arrange employee representative elections, entitling them to a protective award, notice pay, and compensation for pension contribution breaches.
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.