Redundancy and dismissal — common mistakes

When analysing a case study, look for evidence of whether the business followed a fair process. Did they consult? Were the selection criteria objective? A failure in procedure can turn a genuine redundancy into an unfair dismissal, which is a key point for evaluation.

For evaluation marks, always balance the short-term cost savings of redundancy against the potential long-term costs of a demotivated workforce, lower productivity, and a damaged corporate culture. This demonstrates a strategic and holistic understanding of the topic.

No. If a business makes a role redundant, it signifies that the job itself is no longer required. Hiring someone new for the exact same role shortly after would suggest the redundancy was not genuine and could lead to a successful claim for unfair dismissal. The business would have to prove the new role is substantially different from the one made redundant.

No, this is a common misconception. Redundancy is about the job role ceasing to exist. Poor performance is a 'capability' issue and must be handled through a performance management and disciplinary process. This process could lead to a fair dismissal for lack of capability, but it is not a redundancy. Using redundancy to remove a poor performer is likely to be ruled an unfair dismissal.

Not always. In many legal systems, an employee must have a minimum length of continuous service (e.g., two years in the UK) to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment. Furthermore, if an employee unreasonably refuses a suitable offer of alternative employment from the business, they may forfeit their right to the payment. Businesses can also offer more generous 'enhanced' redundancy packages voluntarily.