Legal principle
A reasonable redundancy process usually includes early consultation, fair and objective selection criteria, consistent scoring and consideration of alternative work. The guidance is influential rather than a rigid statutory checklist.
What the court decided
The EAT identified features commonly found in fair redundancy procedures, particularly where a recognised union is involved and employees are selected from a pool.
The practical test
- 1
Was there meaningful consultation while proposals could still change?
- 2
Were the pool and selection criteria reasonable, objective and fairly applied?
- 3
Did the employer take reasonable steps to identify suitable alternative employment?
How tribunals apply it
- Criteria based solely on subjective manager opinion require careful supporting evidence.
- Employees should normally understand the basis of selection and have a chance to challenge material errors.
- Fairness remains fact-specific and is assessed within the range of reasonable responses.
Connected legislation
WorkDisputes tribunal data
Recent decisions involving related issues
These decisions are selected from topic classifications in our public Employment Tribunal dataset. A matching topic does not mean the decision applied this authority directly.
Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination and Other
Employer: Medway Council
All claims were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing; the Tribunal found no unlawful treatment or breach of the relevant regulations.
Legal Issues (4)
- Interpretation of the Fixed-term Employees Regulations 2002 (less favourable treatment)
- pregnancy/maternity discrimination under s18 Equality Act 2010
- automatic unfair dismissal under regulation 10 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (duty to offer suitable alternative vacancy during maternity leave)
- whether a lower-paid role must be offered with salary protection
Reference: 6012100/2024
Unfair Dismissal
Employer: Wickes Building Supplies Ltd
The claim was struck out because the claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous service for an unfair dismissal claim, the claim was presented significantly out of time, and the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim or comply with case management directions.
Legal Issues (3)
- Jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim: (1) claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous employment
- (2) claim presented out of time (5 months late) with no explanation
- (3) claim struck out for no reasonable prospect of success and failure to actively pursue (Rule 38)
Reference: 6012922/2025
Redundancy Pay
Employer: SBands Ltd
The respondent failed to present a response, and the judge was satisfied on the available material that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £7,117.60.
Legal Issues (2)
- Statutory redundancy payment calculation under sections 162-163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- default judgment under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
Reference: 2501362/2026
Redundancy Pay, Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract and Other
Employer: Unipools Ltd and L K Mindel
The claimant won all claims against the First Respondent (unauthorised deductions, breach of contract, redundancy, and holiday pay) but lost the claim against the Second Respondent, which was dismissed.
Legal Issues (4)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages
- breach of contract (notice pay)
- redundancy entitlement
- holiday pay - all arising from the employer ceasing trading without meeting statutory and contractual obligations
Reference: 3303488/2025
Redundancy Pay, Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract and Other
Employer: Unipools Ltd and L K Mindel
The claimant succeeded in claims for wages, breach of contract, and redundancy against the First Respondent, but the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed.
Legal Issues (4)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages
- breach of contract regarding notice period
- entitlement to statutory redundancy pay
- liability of the second respondent
Reference: 3303489/2025
Redundancy Pay, Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract and Other
Employer: Unipools Ltd and L K Mindel
The claimant succeeded in claims for unpaid wages, notice pay and redundancy pay against the first respondent, but the claim against the second respondent was dismissed.
Legal Issues (4)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages (Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13)
- breach of contract in respect of notice (wrongful dismissal)
- entitlement to statutory redundancy payment under Employment Rights Act 1996 s.162
- personal liability of director for company debts
Reference: 3303490/2025