Tandoor chef dismissed without consultation during lockdown: unfair but no compensation

A redundancy without process

When Zaika Restaurant Limited closed its doors in March 2020 due to the first national lockdown, it faced a difficult decision. The restaurant made several employees redundant, including a tandoor chef who had worked there for nearly five years. But the way it handled the dismissal was problematic: the chef was told by telephone that he was being let go, with no consultation, no warning, and no consideration of alternatives.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy — the restaurant had genuinely closed — and that the chef's role had ceased to exist. However, the complete absence of any procedure meant the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The employer accepted this, admitting it had not followed any process.

What could have been done differently?

The employer could have avoided the finding of unfairness by carrying out even a basic consultation. A simple conversation about the situation, exploring alternatives like furlough or reduced hours, would have gone a long way. The chef was not included in a furlough email sent to other staff, suggesting a lack of communication that the tribunal noted.

Why the result matters

Despite the unfairness finding, the chef received only £1,304.11. The tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning it was satisfied that even with a fair procedure, the chef would have been dismissed. This is a reminder that unfair dismissal does not always lead to significant compensation — the key question is what would have happened if the employer had acted fairly.

For employees, this case shows that while a lack of process can win you the legal point, it may not win you much money if the employer can show the outcome would have been the same. For employers, it underscores that even in a crisis, basic procedural fairness is essential to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal.