Unfair redundancy dismissal

If you have ever been summoned to your manager’s office unexpectedly you will know that feeling of dread and fear of ‘have I done something wrong’, which Clint experienced when it happened to him.

The chief innovation officer was certainly not prepared for the shock of what he was told – he was informed he was being dismissed by way of redundancy.

Clint, who had five years’ service, was told after a review of operations his role was no longer required.

He was effectively told by the HR director, who was also present, the decision had been made and he should accept it.

Clint, who had many years earlier made a successful claim for unfair dismissal when he was dismissed from a previous role as a result of an unfair redundancy process, knew the way he was being informed of redundancy was wrong.

He said his attempts to question and challenge what he was told were brushed off.

Clint was informed if he accepted the decision he would get a ‘generous’ redundancy payment.

The HR director said along with the statutory redundancy payment and contractual notice pay, the business would give Clint £1,500 tax free.

He was stunned by the paltry offer, rejected it on the spot, and made clear his intention to challenge the decision.

Clint was placed on gardening leave. Later the same day he took the decision to raise a grievance due to the extremely unfair manner in how he was being treated.

He also requested confirmation of his redundancy in writing, which was later provided.

Surprisingly, the letter said that following the redundancy consultation process the decision had been taken to make Clint redundant. It was said to be because his role was unique and was no longer be required.

The employer said it would treat his grievance as both a grievance and appeal against dismissal, and arrange a grievance hearing.

Clint contacted our Employee Support Centre for help with his case.

One of our representatives who spoke to Clint entirely agreed with him, that his treatment was grossly unfair. He asked what Clint wanted as an outcome.

Cint said although the way in which he was informed of redundancy was a shock, he did know the business was facing challenges and there would be changes.

He had actively started looking for other jobs, but the news did come completely out of the blue.

Clint told our representative he was prepared to leave, but on better terms.

They discussed the unfairness of the situation and a settlement agreement, which Clint said would be ideal.

To help with this, our representative requested a range of information from the employer, which included dates of so called consultation meetings and notes of discussions, the full business reasons for redundancy and details of the new structure.

Bizarrely the employer insisted the information was confidential and could not be shared ahead of the hearing, and could only be discussed during it.

Our representative challenged this, but the employer would not budge.

The exchange of email correspondence between our representative and the employer, certainly made clear to it the challenges it was going to face in dealing with the grievance/appeal and to justify its actions and treatment of Clint.

Right at the start of the hearing, the grievance chair enquired what Clint wanted as an outcome.

Our representative said he wanted to resolve the situation quickly and was open to a conversation to see if any agreement could be reached to do so.

This led to the hearing being adjourned and a without prejudice conversation took place about a settlement agreement.

Unsurprisingly, the business had details of an offer it wanted to put to Clint, and it was a substantial improvement on what he was previously offered when first told he was being made redundant. However, Clint rejected the proposal.

Later discussions and negotiations involving our representative took place.

Delighted Clint did eventually receive a settlement offer, including a five-figure tax free payment, which he was delighted to accept