PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
APPEAL AGAINST REDUNDANCY DISMISSAL
Important legal-advice, jurisdiction and formality warning
This fictional letter is a worked employee appeal example, not legal advice and not a universally valid appeal or claim. It is written for an employment relationship in England and Wales. Before relying on it, the employee and employer must check the employment contract, redundancy and appeal policies, any collective agreement, the ACAS Code where relevant, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, collective consultation duties, statutory redundancy and notice rules, Equality Act 2010 protections, family-leave and whistleblowing rights, suitable-alternative-work rules, pension and tax treatment, and any applicable time limit or prescribed formality. An appeal is an internal process and does not automatically extend an employment tribunal limitation period. The employer must consider the grounds with an open mind, preserve evidence and avoid treating the dismissal as predetermined. All names, dates, addresses, figures and events are fictional.
To: Andrew Colin Webb, Finance and Governance Director Northmere Medical Supplies Limited 4 Hartwell Industrial Park Worcester WR4 9PL Email: governance@northmere.example.test
From: Daniel Marcus Cole, Senior Logistics Coordinator 46 Willowbank Crescent Worcester WR2 5JH Email: daniel.cole@example.test
Date: 21 December 2026
Subject: appeal against dismissal for redundancy dated 14 December 2026
Dear Mr Webb,
I appeal in writing against the decision communicated to me by Helen Louise Armitage, Operations Director, in her letter dated 14 December 2026. That letter dismissed me for redundancy from my role as Senior Logistics Coordinator at Northmere's Worcester depot. I received it by hand at 3:15 p.m. on 14 December. I submit this appeal within the policy period of five working days: 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 December are the relevant working days, excluding the weekend of 19 and 20 December. I ask that you hear the appeal under the company's redundancy procedure and confirm the outcome in writing.
My appeal is not a refusal to engage with the business's financial difficulties. I understand that the medical-supplies market has changed and that Northmere has considered reducing depot costs. I say, however, that the decision to select me and dismiss me was affected by an inaccurate selection score, an inadequate search for suitable alternative work, insufficient consideration of my protected family leave and a failure to address material evidence raised during consultation. I ask for the dismissal to be withdrawn, or alternatively for a fresh and impartial process to be conducted before my employment ends.
1. Employment and consultation chronology
I began continuous employment with Northmere on 9 February 2022 as a Logistics Coordinator and became Senior Logistics Coordinator on 1 April 2025. My gross weekly pay is £684.62, calculated from annual salary of £35,600 divided by 52. My contractual notice is ten weeks. My normal hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and I have been based at the Worcester depot.
On 6 October 2026, Helen gave me a letter explaining a proposal to reduce the dispatch team from eight roles to six because the number of monthly orders had fallen. The letter said that no final decision had been made and that consultation would consider the business case, selection pool, criteria, alternatives and voluntary redundancy. The proposed pool was “dispatch and logistics coordinators” and the proposed criteria were skills and qualifications, performance, attendance and length of service.
At the first individual consultation meeting on 13 October, I said that I had been on shared parental leave from 4 May to 31 July 2026 following the birth of my child. I asked how that period would be treated in the attendance and performance evidence. I also gave a copy of my qualification certificate for the Chartered Institute of Logistics Level 3 Certificate in Operations, completed on 18 March 2026, and explained that I had trained colleagues on the new cold-chain scanner. Helen said the documents would be considered and that absences connected with family leave would not be used unfairly.
On 20 October, I received a provisional scoring sheet. It awarded me 12 of 40 for skills and qualifications, 18 of 30 for performance, 9 of 15 for attendance and 11 of 15 for service, total 50 of 100. The sheet stated that my attendance score counted six unrelated sickness-absence days and separately counted the 89 calendar days of shared parental leave from 4 May to 31 July 2026. It did not identify the qualification certificate or the scanner-training record. The service score appeared to give me eleven points for four complete years, although the matrix stated that five or more complete years earned the highest band. I asked for the scoring evidence and a correction.
On 27 October, Helen sent a revised score of 56 of 100. It changed skills and qualifications from 12 to 16 and service from 11 to 13, while performance remained 18 and attendance remained 9 because the sheet still listed the 89 calendar days of shared parental leave as an absence. The revised evidence bundle contained my annual appraisal for 2025, two customer commendations and a sickness record. It did not contain the dispatch-error log on which my performance score appeared to rely.
On 3 November, I provided a written counter-proposal. I asked Northmere to consider a voluntary four-day week, redeployment to the quality-assurance team, a vacancy in inventory control advertised on the internal portal on 28 October, and a temporary reduction in agency hours. I explained that I held the scanner-trainer qualification and that the quality team had asked me informally for training assistance in August. I also proposed that the pool include the two “warehouse systems” roles because their duties overlap with my dispatch and stock-reconciliation work.
At the consultation meeting on 10 November, Helen said the inventory-control vacancy required advanced Excel experience and would be filled by an external candidate unless I applied. I asked for a trial, training or a written skills assessment. She said that the warehouse-systems roles were outside the proposed pool because they reported to IT, although their published duties included stock-interface support, barcode troubleshooting and dispatch-data checks. I asked for the role descriptions and the business reasons for excluding them. I did not receive those documents before the decision.
On 17 November, I attended with my chosen companion, Peter Vaughan, Warehouse Team Leader. I explained that the attendance score counted six unrelated sickness-absence days and separately counted the 89 calendar days of shared parental leave from 4 May to 31 July 2026. I also explained that the performance score relied on three dispatch errors that had been corrected and that two were recorded while I was covering an unfilled night-shift supervisor position. I asked for the underlying records and a review by someone not involved in the provisional scoring. The meeting note records that Helen would “look into the context”.
On 24 November, Helen sent an outcome-of-consultation letter stating that the business case remained. Before the performance adjustment, my revised selection score was 56 of 100, calculated as 16 for skills and qualifications, 18 for performance, 9 for attendance and 13 for service. The letter said my performance score had increased from 18 to 20 after considering my appraisal, making the final score 58 of 100. It did not identify the final evidence or explain why the scanner-training record did not add points. My attendance remained 9. The letter said there were no suitable alternative vacancies, although the inventory-control vacancy remained visible on the internal portal until 26 November.
On 30 November, I applied for inventory control and asked to be assessed. On 2 December, Ruth Elaine Mercer, Warehouse Operations Manager, told me by email that the role had been offered to an external candidate on 1 December. I had not been invited to an interview or given a skills assessment. On 4 December, I asked whether I could be offered a trial or training plan instead; no response was provided before the dismissal meeting.
I received a dismissal meeting invitation on 7 December for 11 December. It said the meeting would consider the final decision and my notice and payments. I attended with Peter. I repeated the points above and gave a printed copy of the shared-parental-leave approval and the scanner certificate. Helen said the scores had already been reviewed and that the consultation had closed. I asked to pause the meeting to allow the new documents to be checked; the request was refused.
The dismissal letter dated 14 December says that my role is redundant because annual depot orders fell from 84,000 in 2025 to 63,000 in 2026. It confirms a termination date of 22 February 2027, after ten weeks' notice, and estimates statutory redundancy pay of £3,423.10, notice pay of £6,846.20 if paid rather than worked, and accrued holiday of £1,026.92 for 7.5 days. It says the figures will be reconciled in payroll. I have not been paid in lieu of notice and remain available for work.
2. Ground one: inaccurate and inconsistent selection score
The final score cannot be relied on because the evidence, calculation and matrix were not disclosed consistently. The 27 October sheet gave 13 service points, but four complete years of service from 9 February 2022 to 8 February 2026 should be calculated under the matrix's stated bands, and the company has not explained why the score is 13. If the matrix awards three points for each complete year, my service score should be 12, not 13; if it awards an additional point for the current partial year, that rule was not supplied to me and was not applied consistently.
The skills score of 16 does not show how my Level 3 logistics qualification, cold-chain experience, scanner-trainer role and ability to reconcile stock data were assessed. The role profile states that technical system skills and relevant qualifications are part of the criterion. The two warehouse-systems roles use the same scanner and stock-interface knowledge. A scoring exercise that excludes that evidence while selecting a Senior Logistics Coordinator is unreasonable or at least insufficiently explained.
The performance score relied on three dispatch errors: order NM-77104 on 7 September 2026, order NM-77192 on 21 September 2026 and order NM-77241 on 30 September 2026. For NM-77104 I accepted that a batch number was initially missing, reported it the next morning and corrected the record; the temperature logger showed the consignment remained between 2.1 and 5.4 degrees Celsius and no product was lost. For NM-77192, the dispatch record shows I was covering the vacant night-shift supervisor duties and the shift handover did not identify the missing carrier reference. For NM-77241, the error was a scanner synchronisation fault recorded by IT on 1 October. None of the underlying records was provided with the final score.
I ask the appeal manager to obtain the complete matrix, each scorer's notes, the evidence for each criterion, the role descriptions for the pool and anonymised scores for the other employees, with personal information redacted where necessary. Please also correct any arithmetic and explain the weighting. The company must not use a new score or new evidence at appeal without giving me a reasonable opportunity to respond.
3. Ground two: protected family leave and equality considerations
The attendance score includes the 89 calendar days from 4 May to 31 July 2026, when I was taking approved shared parental leave. That period was not sickness absence and should not have reduced my selection prospects. Even if the company uses attendance evidence for a legitimate purpose, it must identify and remove or fairly adjust absences connected with family leave and consider whether the criterion disadvantages employees who have exercised a protected right. I ask for the attendance score to be recalculated using only relevant, non-protected evidence, with the method disclosed.
The decision also did not address my request for a fair adjustment to the process. I asked for the documents in advance, time to explain the work context of the three errors and a second assessor not involved in my day-to-day scoring. The request was practical and proportionate. Refusing to pause the final meeting after I produced the leave approval and certificate meant that material evidence was not considered before dismissal. I do not say that family leave makes redundancy impossible; I say that the lawfully relevant circumstances must be removed or treated appropriately and the evidence must be evaluated fairly.
4. Ground three: failure to consider suitable alternative work
The inventory-control vacancy was available during consultation and involved stock reconciliation, barcode records, order exceptions and coordination with dispatch. Those duties overlap materially with my existing work. The stated need for advanced Excel experience was not tested. I have used pivot tables, lookups and reconciliation sheets in the 2025 and 2026 depot reports, and my 2025 appraisal records that I trained two colleagues on the stock workbook. I was willing to complete a training plan or trial and to accept a reasonable temporary change in duties.
The warehouse-systems roles were excluded without the role descriptions being shared. Their published duties overlap with my scanner and interface experience. I do not ask the appeal manager to assume that I am automatically entitled to either role. I ask for the roles, duties, pay, location, vacancy dates and selection requirements to be considered and for me to be given a genuine opportunity to apply or undertake an objective skills assessment. The external offer for inventory control does not by itself show that there was no suitable alternative when I first raised the vacancy.
The company should also reconsider my written counter-proposal for a four-day week and reduced agency hours. I understand that an alternative must be operationally viable, but the consultation record does not show the cost comparison. Agency hours were 640 hours per month in September and 410 hours in November. A documented comparison could show whether keeping my trained role while reducing agency cover would produce a material saving and preserve cold-chain capability.
5. Ground four: consultation and decision-making
Consultation was presented as open, but the 11 December meeting was described as considering a final decision and Helen said the scores had already been reviewed. I had not received the underlying error records, warehouse-systems descriptions or a response to my 4 December trial request. My evidence was handed in on 11 December and the meeting was not adjourned. The decision letter does not address the leave calculation, the three error circumstances, the qualification or the inventory-control application.
I recognise that consultation does not require the employer to accept every proposal. It does require a genuine opportunity to influence the decision and an explanation of material responses. The appeal is the first opportunity for a manager outside the original scoring process to consider the evidence. I ask for an appeal meeting with enough time to prepare, disclosure of the relevant documents, a record of the meeting and a reasoned decision addressing each ground.
6. Remedy requested and payment position
My primary requested outcome is that the dismissal be withdrawn, the redundancy selection be set aside and I return to my Senior Logistics Coordinator role on continuous employment terms. I would accept a fresh selection exercise using a lawful pool, corrected criteria, accurate evidence and an impartial decision-maker, with consultation reopened if the evidence changes the proposal.
In the alternative, I ask to be offered the inventory-control role or a structured trial, or to be considered for a warehouse-systems vacancy after the duties are reviewed. I request that any training, reasonable adjustment or family-leave issue be considered before a decision. If no alternative is viable, I ask the appeal manager to review the selection and the termination date and to confirm the correct contractual notice, statutory redundancy pay, accrued holiday, pension treatment and any enhanced redundancy payment.
I calculate the figures in the dismissal letter as follows. Annual salary of £35,600 divided by 52 gives weekly pay of £684.62 when rounded to the nearest penny. Ten weeks' notice is £6,846.20 before tax and lawful deductions. The stated statutory redundancy figure of £3,423.10 represents five weeks at £684.62, because I am 34 and would have five complete years of service by the stated termination date of 22 February 2027. It remains subject to the statutory weekly cap in force on that date and the statutory formula, which payroll must confirm. The stated holiday amount of £1,026.92 is calculated using the unrounded expression £35,600 / 52 / 5 × 7.5, rounded to the nearest penny; payroll must confirm the accrued balance, leave taken and correct calculation method. I remain ready to work during notice unless Northmere gives a lawful written instruction otherwise. I do not accept that an estimated figure settles any payment entitlement.
Please preserve the consultation notes, scoring spreadsheets, version history, emails, vacancy records, agency-hour reports, role descriptions, leave records, performance evidence and decision notes. I ask that my personal data is shared only with people who need it for the appeal and that confidential information about other employees is redacted or summarised.
7. Next steps
Please acknowledge this appeal by 24 December 2026 and propose a meeting date during the week beginning 4 January 2027. I request the documents identified above at least five working days before the meeting. I will attend with Peter Vaughan or another permitted companion and can provide a written response to any new evidence. If a reasonable adjustment is needed for the appeal, I will tell People as soon as possible; the process should not be delayed by requiring unnecessary medical details.
The appeal manager should be independent of my selection and dismissal decisions. I ask that Rowan Vale, Senior Partner at Brackenwell Infrastructure LLP, not be involved because Brackenwell is Northmere's external operations adviser and supplied the order forecast used in the business case. If the company proposes another manager, please confirm their role and previous involvement. A postponed termination date or payment arrangement should be confirmed in writing and should not be treated as withdrawal of this appeal.
I reserve my position on statutory and contractual rights. I hope the internal appeal can resolve the matter, but I understand that an internal appeal does not extend any external limitation period. I am willing to attend a meeting promptly and to discuss a fair alternative that preserves my employment or properly corrects the decision.
Yours faithfully,
Daniel Marcus Cole Senior Logistics Coordinator
Signature: ____________________ Date: 21 December 2026
Receipt by Northmere Medical Supplies Limited
Received by Andrew Colin Webb, Finance and Governance Director, on 21 December 2026.
Signature: ____________________ Date: 21 December 2026
Receipt records delivery only and does not indicate agreement with any ground or requested remedy.