Not included in a pool

I was told that my role was put at risk and after the 1 month of consultation process I was made redundant. They stated in the letter that my job activities are going to be trasferred to other staff members. I appealed this decision on the grounds that I had not been included in a selection process.
I received letter from employerr rejecting my appeal and stating in writing that it was not relevant to include me in a pool as my role differs slightly from the roles that are now taking my activities. It is because the employees who will now take on my activities were only not significantly involved in areas of my work and only to some degree. And as role was totally focused on one thing then therefore a pool was not deemed appropriate, despite the fact that the other employees are now taking my work activities. These employees can tak now additional workload as the other projects were working on are finishing.

Is it a fair dismissal?
I would appreciate your help. Many thanks

Can't say for certain - it may or may not have been. The employers argument certainly may be sound, but not necessarily. The issue is whether or not you could have reasonably done any of the other posts - not whether or not they could do yours. Regardless of whether you did a somewhat different role, if you could have done their jobs you were entitled to "bump" these employees into the pool even if their jobs were different - and if they were only slightly different then possibly they should have been included anyway. But you would need a legal opinion on whether the job roles were similar enough to be argued that the pool should have been wider.