Being told you’re “at risk of redundancy” doesn’t always mean it’s a real redundancy
“A 'redundancy' process was found to be a mislabelled contract variation; no dismissal occurred.”
Being told your role is "at risk of redundancy" does not automatically mean the law treats it as a redundancyA dismissal that occurs when your employer no longer needs the work you do, either because the business is closing, a workplace is closing, or the requirement for employees to carry out that kind of w..., especially if your contract already allows your employer to move or vary your role.
- Check your contract for mobility, flexibility or variation clauses before assuming a redundancy process is the right one.
- If your employer accepts it used the wrong process, that does not necessarily mean you were unfairly dismissed, but it is still worth having checked.
- Get advice before agreeing to a proposed new role or signing any change to your contract during a "redundancy" process.
The situation
An employee who worked across three sites for the same employer was told his role was being made redundant, after a client complained about how one site was run. He was not actually losing his job. The employer could have simply moved him between sites under his existing contract, which already allowed for that kind of flexibility. HR later accepted it had used the wrong process altogether.
What the tribunal found
The tribunal found the employee had never actually been dismissed. His contract's mobility and flexibility terms meant the change the employer wanted was a contract variation, not a redundancy, so his employment simply continued at the other two sites he already worked. Even so, the tribunal was critical of how the employer had handled it, accepting that the redundancy process had confused the claimant, and finding it "indeed unfortunate that the respondents followed the redundancy process in error" (Employment Rights Act 1996The primary piece of legislation setting out employees rights in the UK, including the right not to be unfairly dismissed, the right to a written statement of employment particulars, and rights relati..., ss.94 to 98). Had a dismissal actually taken place, the tribunal said it would still have been fair, as a genuine reorganisation of the business. A separate allegation that the change was retaliation for raising concerns about a pregnant colleague's treatment was rejected for lack of evidence.
Mr C Dhami v GS Associates (Scotland) Ltd. Case 1305242/2023. Midlands West Employment Tribunal. 7 August 2024.