Erasing any unfairness in a redundancy process when the writing really was on the wall

When Ellis’s employer announced yet another round of job cuts, he understandably feared the worst.

It was obvious the business had been struggling for quite a while, so it was no surprise and he had seen it coming.

Ellis was made redundant from his role as a printing press operator after going through what his employer called a redundancy consultation process. He was devastated by the outcome and felt it was unfair.

But with expert support of one of our trade union representatives, the decision to dismiss Ellis from the role he loved, and had held for over 10 years, was eventually resolved in a way he was happy with.

The threat of redundancy had been hanging over Ellis for quite a while, especially after the pandemic.

Ellis had watched close colleagues lose their jobs. He had also seen one former workmate, made redundant, take an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal and lose.

So when Ellis was finally given the news he would be made redundant, he felt he had no real choice but to accept the statutory redundancy payment he was offered.

It was Ellis’s dad who encouraged him to contact our Employee Support Centre. He was convinced his son had been treated unfairly and shouldn’t just accept the situation without getting proper advice.

When Ellis first spoke to our trade union representative, he explained he had survived previous rounds of redundancy based on the selection criteria used, but this time he was told that his role had been identified as redundant.

He was invited to a consultation meeting, which was recorded with everyone’s agreement. Having an accurate record of what was discussed would prove to be extremely helpful in this case.

Our trade union representative listened to the recording. The employer explained its reasons, and Ellis raised his concerns about the process.

He also put forward several reasonable suggestions about alternative roles and ways in which he believed redundancy could be avoided.

The employer was extremely dismissive of every suggestion. It more or less told him there was nothing it could do, it was unfortunate, and he should accept it and start looking for another job.

At the end of the first and only consultation meeting, Ellis’s redundancy was confirmed.

He appealed the decision on the basis that both the process and the outcome were unfair.

Our representative discussed with Ellis what he wanted from the appeal.

Ellis admitted he had known for a long time that things were heading this way, but he had been trying not to think about it.

He felt he had grounds for an unfair dismissal claim because the decision was unjust, consultation was not meaningful, and the process was unreasonable.

His preference though, was to resolve things through a settlement agreement rather than go through the legal process.

At the redundancy appeal hearing, our trade union representative highlighted several key failings in the employer’s approach.

There had been no meaningful consultation at all, which was highlighted using examples from the recording and sparse communication and evidence regarding the reasons for redundancy.

The employer had also failed to consider any alternative roles, even though Ellis was multi‑skilled and had worked in several departments over the years.

It was also pointed out that Ellis had suggested reducing his hours, something the employer had already done for others, but his request was dismissed without proper consideration.

Our trade union representative asserted that the decision and the flawed process meant Ellis would have a legitimate claim for unfair dismissal.

The employer insisted the process was fair and that it was simply an unfortunate situation with no alternatives.

However, it did agree to discuss a settlement. After some negotiation, a settlement agreement was eventually reached.

Ellis was delighted with the outcome. And in the time between signing the agreement and receiving the payment, he secured himself a new job and the fresh start he deserved.