Why Reasonable HR Decisions Still End Up in Employment Tribunals

A leadership issue UK Managing Directors cannot afford to ignore

Most employment tribunal claims do not begin with bad intent.

They begin with decisions that felt reasonable at the time.

A line manager trying to deal with underperformance.
A Managing Director making a call based on experience.
A business is moving quickly because it has to.

From the inside, it often feels pragmatic. Even fair.

From the outside, particularly months later in a tribunal setting, it can look very different.

This is where many UK business owners and Managing Directors find themselves genuinely shocked. Not because they knowingly cut corners, but because they believed common sense would count for something.

It rarely does.

The quiet way HR risk builds in growing UK businesses

In small businesses, HR decisions are often informal by necessity. Everyone knows each other. Context is shared. Exceptions are understood.

As organisations grow, that informality starts to work against the business.

Decisions are still being made quickly.
Managers are still trusted to “do the right thing”.
Policies exist, but are not always followed to the letter.

What changes is not intent, but exposure.

Each informal decision sets a precedent. Each exception becomes part of an unspoken pattern. Over time, those patterns harden into something that looks like inconsistency.

That inconsistency is where HR risk quietly takes hold.

The leadership blind spot: fairness versus consistency

Most Managing Directors believe they are being fair.

They listen.
They consider circumstances.
They take a balanced view.

The problem is that UK employment tribunals are not interested in whether a decision felt fair in isolation. They assess whether similar situations were handled consistently and in line with a fair process.

Two employees, similar conduct, different outcomes.

To the business, those differences may feel justified. Different managers. Different timing. Different pressures.

To a tribunal, they often look like unequal treatment.

This is the moment when many leaders realise, too late, that fairness and consistency are not the same thing in legal terms.

A familiar scenario UK tribunals see repeatedly

Consider a growing professional services firm with around 60 staff.

A senior employee underperforms. Informal conversations take place. Expectations are set verbally. Eventually, the employee is dismissed.

Months later, a tribunal claim lands.

During proceedings, it emerges that:

• other employees with similar performance issues were given written warnings

• one was moved to a different role

• another was supported with a performance improvement plan

Each decision made sense at the time.

Collectively, they demonstrate inconsistency.

The tribunal does not conclude that the Managing Director acted maliciously. It concludes that the process was flawed.

The claim succeeds.

This pattern is not unusual. It is common.

Why employment tribunal claims feel like they come “out of nowhere”

Many MDs describe tribunal claims as ambushes.

They are not.

They are usually the delayed outcome of decisions made under pressure, without a clear framework for consistency.

Several factors amplify the shock:

• claims often arrive months after the event

• the narrative is reframed through legal language

• intent carries far less weight than process

By the time a claim surfaces, memories differ, documentation is patchy, and decisions that once felt obvious require formal justification.

This is when leaders realise that good intentions are not a defence.

Who actually carries the risk when employment decisions go wrong

In UK businesses, employment risk does not sit with HR.

It sits with the employer.

And ultimately, with the board or the Managing Director.

Tribunal awards, legal fees, management time, reputational damage and internal disruption all land at the leadership level.

This is why HR is not simply an operational concern. It is a leadership responsibility.

Not because leaders need to manage people day to day, but because they are accountable for the systems where decisions are made within.

The point at which informal HR stops being “good enough”

There is no single headcount threshold where HR suddenly becomes critical.

However, patterns emerge consistently in UK tribunal cases.

Risk increases when:

• multiple managers are making people decisions

• performance and conduct are handled differently across teams

• policies exist but are selectively applied

• decisions rely on memory rather than a documented process

At this stage, continuing to rely on informal judgment is no longer pragmatic. It becomes risky.

The cost is not always immediate. But it is cumulative.

Why “being reasonable” is not a legal defence

This is the hardest truth for many business owners and MDs to accept.

Employment tribunals assess:

• procedural fairness

• consistency of treatment

• adherence to a reasonable process

They do not assess intent in the way business leaders expect.

A reasonable outcome reached through an inconsistent or poorly followed process can still be unlawful.

This is why so many tribunal decisions feel disconnected from how events were experienced internally.

It is also why leaders often underestimate their exposure until it is tested.

For many growing businesses, this is the point at which informal HR becomes unsustainable, and structured HR decision support becomes essential to reduce employment tribunal risk.

This is where experienced HR consultancy support helps leaders pressure-test decisions before they become liabilities.

What actually reduces employment and tribunal risk in practice

Reducing employment risk is not about more paperwork.

It is about decision protection.

That means:

• clear frameworks for handling performance, conduct and absence

• consistency across managers, not just within teams

• early advice before decisions are locked in

• documentation that reflects thinking at the time, not hindsight

When these elements are in place, decisions become easier to defend, even when outcomes are challenged.

This is where structured HR support earns its value.

HR as decision support, not bureaucracy

The most effective HR arrangements in growing UK businesses share one characteristic.

They exist to support better decisions, not to slow them down.

This is the difference between HR as compliance and HR as leadership infrastructure.

When HR is positioned correctly, it:

• protects leaders from avoidable risk

• gives managers confidence to act

• reduces emotional decision-making under pressure

• prevents issues escalating into formal disputes

This is the role of a robust HR consultancy function, not simply an HR admin function.

Why experienced support matters when pressure is high

Most problematic HR decisions are made when leaders are busy, distracted, or under stress.

That is not a failure. It is reality.

What matters is having a safe pair of hands, grounded by the experience of working with multiple clients in a wide range of industries, to pressure-test decisions before they create exposure.

This is where businesses often turn to experienced HR consultancy support that understands both the legal landscape and the commercial realities of running a growing organisation.

Not to take control, but to ensure decisions stand up when tested.

A final thought for UK Managing Directors

If your business has grown, so has your risk profile.

HR decisions that once felt informal and harmless now carry weight.

The question is not whether you are acting reasonably.

It is whether your decisions would still look reasonable months later, under scrutiny, in front of an employment tribunal.

That is not a staff issue.

It is a leadership responsibility.