A meeting isn’t consultation if the decision was already made before you walked in.
“Tribunal found constructive unfair dismissalA legal claim you can bring if your employer dismissed you without a fair reason or without following a fair process. You normally need two years of continuous employment to qualify, though some dismi....”
If your employer presents a change to your role as open for discussion but the decision was already made beforehand, that is not real consultationA process your employer is required to carry out before making significant decisions that affect you, most commonly redundancy. It must be genuine, meaning your employer must listen and consider what .... Tribunals look at what actually happened, not what the meeting was called.
- If a workplace change is presented to you as final or already agreed elsewhere, you're entitled to say so and ask for genuine consultation, even if pay or title protections are offered alongside it.
- Keep a note of when you were told about a change and exactly what you were told, including anything suggesting the decision was already made.
- If your employer keeps implementing or announcing a change while your grievance about it is still open, get advice before deciding whether to resign.
The situation
A regional manager at a mortgage services business was called into what he thought was a routine catch-up with his line manager and the managing director. Instead, they told him on the spot that his role would be demoted, cutting the number of people he managed from around fifteen to just four. The decision had already been agreed between senior managers the day before anyone spoke to him. He was offered pay protection for a year. He wasn't offered a say in whether the change happened at all.
What the tribunal found
Section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was engaged here, and the tribunal ruled the dismissal unfair. Presenting an already-decided change as if it were open for discussion breached the implied term of trust and confidence, the judge found, regardless of the pay protection offered alongside it. The tribunal called it what it was. "This was, in effect, a demotion." What made the breach worse was that the company kept announcing the new structure internally, including naming who was taking over parts of his role, while his grievanceA formal complaint raised by an employee against their employer, triggering a legal obligation to investigate and respond. about exactly that change was still open and unresolved.
Mr S Masters v Sharman Quinney Holdings Ltd. Case 6019533/2025. Employment Tribunal (Bury St Edmunds). March 2026.