Café manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy and missed vacancy
A café manager with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to inform her of a sales assistant vacancy during redundancy consultation. The tribunal awarded £560.28 after applying a 66.7% Polkey reduction.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Café Manager from 31 October 2005 until 7 February 2023.
- She began a period of sickness absence on 24 September 2022 after injuring her ankle.
- During her absence, her duties were absorbed by other staff and the café operated well.
- The respondent decided to make her role redundant and consulted with her from January 2023.
- The respondent failed to inform the claimant of a sales assistant vacancy during the consultation.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to the failure to consider alternative employment.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as Café Manager at the Northallerton store.
-
Sickness absence begins
Claimant injured her ankle on holiday and started a period of sickness absence.
-
Redundancy identified
By late November, director Charlie Turner realised the café was operating well without the claimant and considered her role at risk of redundancy.
-
First meeting
Claimant was told her role was at risk of redundancy; she felt misled and lost trust.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant proposed alternatives to redundancy; respondent agreed to consider them.
-
Second consultation meeting
Respondent rejected all alternatives proposed by the claimant.
-
Third consultation meeting
Process paused due to claimant's grievance against Charlie Turner.
-
Grievance hearing
Ben Turner heard the grievance; claimant remained on full pay until 22 January.
-
Fourth consultation meeting and dismissal
Claimant was told her role was redundant and dismissed with immediate effect.
-
Dismissal letter
Claimant received written confirmation of dismissal and a screenshot of a sales assistant vacancy.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed but did not mention the sales assistant vacancy.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant raised the vacancy; Ben Turner did not consider it in the outcome.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal not upheld; no reference to the vacancy in the outcome letter.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal by reason of redundancy was fair, and if not, what compensation should be awarded considering the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer failed to inform the claimant of a sales assistant vacancy during the redundancy consultation. However, the tribunal applied a 66.7% Polkey reduction, reflecting the chance that she would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
Compensation:
- Compensatory award: £560.28
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must actively consider suitable alternative vacancies during redundancy consultation and inform employees of them.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process; failing to offer a suitable alternative role can render a dismissal unfair.
- Even if the dismissal is unfair, compensation can be reduced if the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway (Polkey reduction).
- A grievance during the process does not absolve the employer of its duty to consider alternative employment.
A redundancy process that missed a crucial step
When a café manager with 17 years' service went on sick leave after injuring her ankle, her employer, Sam Turner & Sons Limited, found that the café ran well without her. By late November 2022, the director decided her role was at risk of redundancy. The consultation that followed in January 2023 was procedurally flawed: the employer did not tell her about a sales assistant vacancy that had arisen. She only discovered it after her dismissal, when a screenshot of the advert was included in her dismissal letter.
The tribunal found that this failure to consider alternative employment made the dismissal unfair. The employer could have avoided this outcome by simply informing her of the vacancy during the consultation, giving her the chance to apply. The claimant's long service meant she deserved a thorough process, but the employer's oversight meant she lost that opportunity.
Why the compensation was reduced
Despite finding the dismissal unfair, the tribunal applied a 66.7% Polkey reduction. This means the tribunal concluded that even with a fair process, there was a significant chance the claimant would have been dismissed anyway. The café was operating well without her, and the redundancy was genuine. As a result, the compensatory award was limited to £560.28, reflecting the loss of a chance to secure the alternative role.
What this means for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of properly considering alternative employment during redundancy. Employers should document all vacancies and discuss them with affected employees. For employees, it shows that even a procedurally unfair dismissal may result in limited compensation if the redundancy was genuine and the employee would likely have lost their job anyway. The case also underscores that long service does not guarantee a different outcome, but it does require a fair process.
Similar cases
Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
Solicitor made redundant without proper consideration of alternative role at sister firm
A housing solicitor was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to properly consider a possible secondment at a sister firm. The tribunal found a 85% chance that consultation would have led to an alternative role.
Long-serving staff unfairly dismissed after redundancy process ignored own grievance policy
Three long-serving duty officers were unfairly dismissed when their employer failed to follow its own grievance policy before making them redundant. The tribunal awarded compensation limited to two months' furlough pay.
Procedurally unfair redundancy but no compensation: employee who rejected alternative role
A Principal Technical Author with 14 years' service won his unfair dismissal claim over a flawed redundancy process, but received no compensation because the tribunal found he would not have accepted any alternative role.