Facilities manager dismissed after sham redundancy and disciplinary process
A facilities manager with dyslexia and heart failure was unfairly dismissed after his employer turned a redundancy process into a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the process was a sham and the real reason was a breakdown in trust and confidence.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Facilities Manager from 16 November 2015 to 27 October 2021.
- The claimant has disabilities of dyslexia and heart failure, known to the respondents.
- The respondent placed the claimant at risk of redundancy on 25 May 2021 and immediately removed his access to work systems.
- The redundancy process was converted into a disciplinary process in June 2021 after complaints about the claimant's behaviour.
- The claimant was dismissed on 27 October 2021 for some other substantial reason (breakdown in trust and confidence).
- The tribunal found the dismissal substantively unfair and that the redundancy and disciplinary processes were a sham.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as Facilities Manager at Marsh Farm Futures.
-
Email exchange about face-to-face training
Claimant and Mr Rafi exchanged emails about the legality of face-to-face training during Covid restrictions; claimant was asked to put advice in writing.
-
Email to Luton Borough Council
Claimant emailed Luton Borough Council about the proposed face-to-face training, which was later allowed as a protected disclosure.
-
Board meeting
Claimant raised health and safety policy concerns at a board meeting; Mr Rafi criticised his written work.
-
Email from Mr Rafi
Mr Rafi sent an email criticising the claimant's policy documents, which the tribunal found to be unfavourable treatment and harassment.
-
Placed at risk of redundancy
Claimant was summoned to a meeting and told he was at risk of redundancy; his access to work systems was removed.
-
Email to directors and MP
Claimant sent an email to two directors and his local MP alleging various failures, which was a protected disclosure.
-
Disciplinary process started
Mr Rafi decided to convert the redundancy process into a disciplinary process after receiving complaints.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by letter from Mr Rafi, accepting the recommendation of an external HR consultant.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found unfair dismissal succeeded, but whistleblowing and most discrimination claims failed; remedy hearing to be listed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for 'some other substantial reason' (breakdown in trust and confidence), and whether he suffered discrimination or detriment for making protected disclosures or because of his disabilities.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that the redundancy and disciplinary processes were a sham. The employer had already decided to dismiss before any proper process was followed.
However, most of the other claims failed:
- The whistleblowing claims (automatic unfair dismissal and detriment) were dismissed.
- The indirect disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
- The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed.
- The claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA was dismissed.
The claims for discrimination arising from disability and harassment succeeded in part.
Compensation will be decided at a separate remedy hearing. No figures have been awarded yet.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have a disability, make sure your employer knows about it and has considered reasonable adjustments before starting a disciplinary or redundancy process.
- A redundancy process that is quickly converted into a disciplinary process after complaints may be scrutinised by a tribunal as a sham.
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically protect you from dismissal if the employer can show the real reason was something else, like a breakdown in trust and confidence.
- Employers should not remove an employee's access to work systems at the start of a redundancy process without good reason — this can indicate a predetermined outcome.
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward redundancy process can unravel when an employer loses trust in an employee and decides to dismiss without following proper procedure. The claimant, a facilities manager with six years' service, had dyslexia and heart failure — conditions his employer knew about. After he raised health and safety concerns about face-to-face training during the pandemic, the relationship with his line manager deteriorated.
A process that was a sham from the start
The employer placed the claimant at risk of redundancy in May 2021 and immediately removed his access to work systems. Within weeks, the redundancy process was converted into a disciplinary process after complaints about the claimant's behaviour. The tribunal found that the redundancy and disciplinary processes were a sham — the employer had already decided to dismiss for a breakdown in trust and confidence before any proper investigation or consultation took place.
The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for 'some other substantial reason' (the breakdown in trust), but held that the employer's response was substantively unfair. A fair process would have involved proper consultation, consideration of alternatives, and a genuine attempt to resolve the issues before resorting to dismissal.
What the employer did wrong
The employer could have avoided this outcome by following a genuine redundancy process with proper consultation, and by addressing the relationship issues through mediation or performance management rather than jumping straight to dismissal. The decision to remove the claimant's access to work systems at the start of the redundancy process was a clear sign that the outcome was predetermined.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look closely at whether a redundancy or disciplinary process is genuine or a sham. Employees who believe their employer has already decided to dismiss should gather evidence of predetermined outcomes, such as removal of access to systems or failure to consider alternatives. However, the case also shows that whistleblowing claims can be difficult to win if the employer can show the real reason for dismissal was something else, like a breakdown in trust.
Similar cases
Voluntary redundancy: stage crew member with dyslexia wins unfair dismissal claim
A long-serving stage crew member with dyslexia has won his unfair dismissal claim against Welsh National Opera after the tribunal found the employer failed to discuss reasonable adjustments during a redundancy process. All other claims, including age discrimination and protected disclosure complaints, were dismissed.
Relief manager dismissed for rude email and failing to follow instructions: all claims rejected
A relief manager who was dismissed after sending an inflammatory email and failing to comply with instructions lost his unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found no protected disclosures and no discrimination.
Bus driver with Crohn's disease awarded £25,000 after employer failed to provide suitable shifts
A bus driver with over 30 years' service was awarded £25,000 after his employer repeatedly allocated shifts that did not meet his disability-related needs, causing him to soil himself at work.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.