This article explores the legal risks arising where redundancies coincide with trade union activity and AI-driven workplace restructuring, using the recent TikTok claims as a timely example.

The dismissal of hundreds of UK-based content moderators employed by TikTok has sharpened focus on the legal risks of managing redundancies during unionisation, particularly where those redundancies are linked to the growing use of artificial intelligence.

According to reported information, around 400 London-based moderators were dismissed in late 2025 following the announcement of a redundancy exercise. The process was initiated approximately one week before employees were due to vote on whether to seek formal union recognition.

A small number of former workers have since brought employment tribunal claims alleging unlawful detriment and automatic unfair dismissal connected to trade union activity. TikTok has denied the allegations, maintaining that the redundancies were part of a wider global reorganisation of its trust and safety operations, driven by efficiency and increased reliance on automated moderation systems.

While the claims remain to be determined, the case illustrates the heightened scrutiny that applies when redundancy proposals coincide with organising activity. UK law does not prohibit redundancies during unionisation, nor does it prevent employers from restructuring roles in response to automation. However, employers must be able to demonstrate with clear evidence that such decisions are driven entirely by genuine business need and are unconnected to protected trade union activities.

Automatic unfair dismissal

Where union activity forms part of the reason for dismissal or detriment, the consequences are significant. Dismissals connected to trade union membership or activities are likely to be automatically unfair, with no qualifying service requirement and uncapped compensation. In practice, tribunals will place close weight on timing, internal communications and the coherence of the employer’s explanation for change.

Increased penalties for failure to consult 

Redundancy consultation obligations also remain critical. Individual consultation is required in all cases and collective consultation must take place where 20 or more redundancies are proposed within 90 days at a single establishment. Where unionisation is underway or a union is recognised, consultation must be meaningful. Decisions presented as predetermined or timetables that leave little room for genuine dialogue, materially increase legal risk.

That risk has increased further following legislative change. From 6 April 2026, the maximum protective award for failure to comply with collective consultation obligations has doubled from 90 to one 180 days’ pay. For large-scale restructures, this significantly raises the financial exposure associated with procedural failings, irrespective of the underlying business rationale.

AI implementation and evidential risk

The increased use of AI introduces additional complexity. Employers may need to explain in clear, human terms how automated systems have affected staffing levels, workflow or role design. If decision making cannot be explained or justified coherently, defending dismissals becomes more difficult. Careless internal language linking union activity to cost or inefficiency may also be relied upon as evidence of unlawful motivation.

The TikTok case reflects a narrowing margin for error. As AI reshapes the workforce, employers must align technological change with robust process, transparent communication and disciplined documentation. Done carefully, redundancies can proceed lawfully. Done poorly, they risk substantial awards, reputational harm and long-term damage to employee trust.

By Tania Goodman, partner and head of employment, Collyer Bristow