Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #grievance
- #financial-difficulties
- #protected-disclosure
- #tupe-transfer
- #dissolved-respondent
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Business Development Manager from 9 November 2017 until 16 March 2020.
- The first respondent, Pragmatic Web Ltd, was dissolved on 2 November 2023 and the second respondent, Angry Creative (UK) Ltd, stood in its shoes.
- The claimant raised an informal grievance on 13 January 2020 concerning his role and pay, and also raised concerns about the redundancy of a colleague.
- The first respondent was in financial difficulty and undertook a restructuring, making the claimant redundant on 16 March 2020.
- The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure, so the claims for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment failed.
- By a majority decision, the tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the principal reason was his grievance, not redundancy.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as Business Development Manager for Pragmatic Web Ltd.
-
First at-risk notice
Claimant notified his role was at risk of redundancy, but was retained after consultation.
-
Laura Nelson made redundant
Marketing Manager Laura Nelson was made redundant, which later concerned the claimant.
-
Claimant raised informal grievance
Claimant emailed Tom Chute and Andrea Crooke raising concerns about his role, pay, and Laura Nelson's redundancy.
-
Grievance meeting and commission withheld
Meeting to discuss grievance; claimant was told his commission would be withheld due to financial difficulties.
-
Redundancy proposals circulated
First Respondent announced proposed redundancies of 5.05 FTE, including claimant's unique role.
-
Claimant formalised grievance
Claimant confirmed he wanted his grievance treated as formal.
-
Grievance outcome
Tom Chute issued outcome letter not upholding the grievance.
-
Grievance appeal dismissed
Amy Slade dismissed the claimant's appeal against the grievance outcome.
-
Dismissal by redundancy
Claimant's employment terminated with immediate effect, paid notice and redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed for making protected disclosures (automatic unfair dismissal) or for raising a grievance (ordinary unfair dismissal), and whether the employer's stated reason of redundancy was genuine.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims for automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for protected disclosures, finding that the claimant had not made a protected disclosure. However, by a majority, it upheld the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal. The tribunal concluded that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's grievance, not redundancy, and that the employer had not shown a fair reason or process. Remedy will be determined at a separate hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Raising a grievance does not automatically protect you from dismissal, but dismissing someone because of a grievance can be unfair.
- Employers should ensure that redundancy decisions are genuinely about the role and not influenced by an employee's complaints.
- If you are dismissed after raising concerns, you may have a claim for unfair dismissal even if those concerns do not amount to protected disclosures.
- The length of service (here, over 2 years) is important: employees with more than 2 years' service have the right to claim ordinary unfair dismissal.
When a redundancy is not about redundancy
This case shows how a redundancy process can be undermined if the employer's real motive is to remove an employee who has raised a grievance. The claimant, a Business Development Manager with over two years' service, was made redundant shortly after he raised concerns about his role, pay, and a colleague's redundancy. The tribunal found that while the company was in financial difficulty and restructuring was needed, the principal reason for selecting the claimant was his grievance, not the redundancy criteria.
What went wrong for the employer
The employer could have avoided a finding of unfair dismissal by separating the grievance process from the redundancy selection. Instead, the timing and evidence suggested that the grievance influenced the decision. The tribunal noted that the claimant's role was unique and was the only one selected for redundancy, despite the company having other roles that could have been at risk. The employer also failed to show that it applied objective selection criteria.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employees who raise grievances are protected from being dismissed for that reason. Even if the grievance does not amount to a protected disclosure, dismissing someone because they complained can be unfair. For employees, it shows the importance of documenting concerns and seeking legal advice if they are dismissed soon after raising issues. For employers, it highlights the need to ensure that redundancy decisions are transparent and not tainted by other factors.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal after protected disclosure: tribunal finds fair process
A showroom administrator with 8 years' service was dismissed by reason of redundancy after making a protected disclosure about GDPR breaches. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and not automatically unfair.
Interim relief refused: redundancy decision made before protected disclosures
A senior contracts attorney lost her bid for interim relief after the tribunal found her redundancy was decided before she made protected disclosures about sanctions risks. The claim was dismissed.
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Missed redundancy interview: long-serving project manager loses unfair dismissal claim
A project manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after failing to attend a competitive interview. The tribunal rejected claims that his role as an employee representative or his grievances were the real reason.