31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from September 1989 until March 2020.
- In March 2019, the claimant moved from Branch Manager to Category Sales Manager with reduced pay and benefits.
- In January 2020, the respondent announced a restructure due to declining sales at the London City branch.
- The claimant's role was identified as at risk of redundancy and he was placed in a pool of one.
- The claimant did not attend the second and third consultation meetings and did not request postponement.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 3 March 2020.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started working at Wolseley UK Limited as a sales adviser.
-
Promoted to Branch Manager
Claimant became Branch Manager of the Strood branch.
-
Meeting about performance
Claimant met with managers to discuss poor branch performance and was offered Category Sales Manager role.
-
Accepted new role
Claimant accepted the Category Sales Manager role at London City branch.
-
Started new role
Claimant commenced as Category Sales Manager with reduced salary and benefits.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a grievance alleging age discrimination.
-
Grievance meeting
Grievance meeting held; claimant's representative was not allowed to speak as desired.
-
Redundancy announced
Respondent announced a restructure and potential redundancies at London City branch.
-
At risk letter
Claimant informed his role was at risk of redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
First consultation meeting held; claimant's representative left early due to disagreement.
-
Second consultation scheduled
Second consultation meeting scheduled but claimant did not attend.
-
Third consultation scheduled
Third consultation meeting scheduled; claimant did not attend and was signed off sick.
-
Final consultation held
Respondent held final consultation in claimant's absence.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Redundancy appeal hearing
Appeal hearing held; claimant's representative agreed to provide written submissions but did not.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was unfair, whether he was directly discriminated against or harassed because of his age, and whether he was victimised for making protected acts.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, ruling that the dismissal was fair and not discriminatory.
Key reasons:
- The redundancy was genuine due to declining sales at the London City branch.
- The claimant was placed in a pool of one because his role was unique.
- The claimant did not attend two of the three consultation meetings and did not request postponement.
- The employer held a final consultation in his absence before deciding to dismiss.
- The claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were not supported by the evidence.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Attending consultation meetings is crucial — failing to attend without good reason can weaken an unfair dismissal claim.
- Long service does not automatically make a redundancy dismissal unfair if the process is otherwise reasonable.
- Employers can place an employee in a pool of one if their role is genuinely unique, but must still consult properly.
- Raising a grievance does not protect an employee from a genuine redundancy situation if the process is fair.
When redundancy process meets employee absence
This case shows how a redundancy process can be fair even when an employee with long service does not engage with consultations. The former employee, who had worked for Wolseley UK Limited for 31 years, was moved to a new role in March 2019 after performance concerns. Less than a year later, the company announced a restructure due to falling sales at the London City branch, and his role was identified as at risk.
The employee was placed in a pool of one because his role was unique. He attended the first consultation meeting but his union representative left early after a disagreement. He did not attend the second or third meetings, and did not ask to postpone them. The employer held a final consultation in his absence and decided to dismiss by reason of redundancy.
What the employer did right
The tribunal noted that Wolseley UK Limited had a genuine redundancy situation and followed a reasonable process. They wrote to the employee, offered consultation meetings, and even held a final meeting when he did not attend. The employee also raised a grievance about age discrimination during the process, but the tribunal found no evidence that this influenced the redundancy decision. The dismissal was for redundancy, not because of the grievance.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The employee claimed that his move to a lower-paid role and subsequent redundancy were due to his age, and that he was harassed and victimised. However, the tribunal found that the move was due to poor branch performance, not age. The redundancy was driven by business needs, and there was no evidence that the employee was treated less favourably because of his age or because he had made protected acts.
Key takeaway for employees
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes require active participation from employees. Failing to attend consultation meetings without a valid reason can undermine a claim of unfair dismissal, even after decades of service. Employers must still act reasonably, but they are not expected to delay indefinitely if an employee does not engage.
Similar cases
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Finance Manager loses redundancy and discrimination claims after returning from maternity leave
An Employment Tribunal has dismissed all claims of maternity discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal brought by a Finance Manager who was made redundant shortly after returning from maternity leave.
Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.