University academic unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation over retained post
A University of Leicester academic was unfairly dismissed when the university failed to properly consult on redundancy selection after changing its proposal to retain a permanent post. The tribunal awarded £72,487.50 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #disability-discrimination
- #stress-related-illness
- #failure-to-consult
- #retained-post
Key facts
- The claimant was a grade 9 academic teaching Medieval and Early Modern English Literature at the University of Leicester.
- The University initiated a redundancy process due to declining student numbers in English, proposing to reduce staff in Medieval and Early Modern Literature.
- The claimant suffered severe stress and anxiety from the process, leading to her inability to engage, and was signed off sick from February 2021.
- The University changed its proposal from creating a fixed-term 'teach-out' post to 'retaining' a permanent post, but did not reconsider the selection process.
- The claimant did not express interest in the retained post, partly due to misunderstanding the application requirements.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the University failed to properly consult on the pool and selection criteria after changing the proposal.
Timeline
-
Llewellyn review commissioned
Professor O'Connor commissioned Professor Llewellyn to review the undergraduate English programme.
-
Claimant diagnosed with type 2 diabetes
Dr D'Arcy was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, which the University conceded it knew about from this date.
-
Pre-change engagement meeting
The University held a meeting with all academic staff in the English Department to discuss the need for changes, including possible redundancies.
-
Case for Change document issued
The University issued a 'Case for Change' proposing to close English Language and cease teaching Medieval Literature, putting staff at risk of redundancy.
-
First collective consultation meeting
Dr D'Arcy attended but did not ask questions; the University presented its proposals.
-
Claimant signed off sick with stress
Dr D'Arcy's GP signed her off sick with stress, and she remained off until her employment ended.
-
Second collective consultation meeting
The University announced it would 'retain' a grade 9 post instead of creating a teach-out post, ring-fenced to the three at-risk staff.
-
Deadline for expressions of interest
The original deadline for expressing interest in the retained post; later extended to 26 March for Dr D'Arcy.
-
Claimant made redundant
The University wrote to Dr D'Arcy confirming her redundancy with effect from 11 August 2021.
-
Appeal hearing
The University's Council heard Dr D'Arcy's appeal against redundancy; it was dismissed on 8 October 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the University of Leicester unfairly dismissed Dr D'Arcy by reason of redundancy, and whether it discriminated against her because of her disability (type 2 diabetes) by failing to make reasonable adjustments or treating her unfavourably due to something arising from her disability.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the University of Leicester unfairly dismissed Dr D'Arcy. The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the University failed to properly consult on the pool and selection criteria after changing its proposal from a fixed-term 'teach-out' post to retaining a permanent post. This change meant the original consultation was no longer adequate, and the University should have re-engaged with staff.
Compensation was awarded at £72,487.50, which includes:
- Basic award: not separately stated
- Compensatory award: not separately stated
- No reduction for Polkey or contributory fault was applied at this stage (deferred to remedy hearing).
Lessons & takeaways
- If an employer changes the basis of a redundancy proposal (e.g., from a fixed-term post to a permanent one), they must re-consult on the selection pool and criteria.
- Employees who are signed off sick during a redundancy process should still be given a proper opportunity to engage, and employers should consider reasonable adjustments.
- Failing to consult properly on the pool for selection can make a redundancy dismissal unfair, even if the role itself is genuinely redundant.
- Representing yourself in a tribunal is possible but challenging; having a union representative or legal advice can help navigate complex procedural issues.
When a redundancy process goes wrong
Dr D'Arcy, a grade 9 academic specialising in Medieval and Early Modern English Literature at the University of Leicester, was made redundant in 2021 following a restructuring of the English department. The university cited declining student numbers as the reason for the redundancy. However, the tribunal found that the process was flawed in a way that made the dismissal unfair.
The key issue was that the university initially proposed creating a fixed-term 'teach-out' post for the affected staff, but later changed this to retaining a permanent post. Despite this significant change, the university did not re-consult on the selection pool or criteria. The tribunal concluded that this failure undermined the fairness of the process, as the original consultation had been based on a different proposal.
What the university could have done differently
The university could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by re-consulting with the affected staff after changing the proposal. This would have given Dr D'Arcy and her colleagues a proper opportunity to understand the new situation and express interest in the retained post. The tribunal noted that Dr D'Arcy was signed off sick with stress during much of the process, and the university could have done more to support her engagement, such as offering reasonable adjustments.
Why this case matters
This case highlights the importance of proper consultation in redundancy processes, especially when proposals change. Employers must ensure that consultation is meaningful and reflects the current situation, not an earlier version of the plan. For employees, it shows that procedural flaws can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, even if the redundancy reason is genuine. The substantial compensation award of £72,487.50 reflects the impact of the unfair process on Dr D'Arcy's career and wellbeing.
Similar cases
Redundancy without consultation: protective award of 90 days' pay
A former employee won a protective award of 90 days' pay after his employer made him redundant without any consultation. The company was in administration and did not attend the hearing.
Security guard dismissed after losing sight: employer failed to explore redeployment
A security guard who lost most of his sight was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against by Mitie Ltd, which failed to consider reasonable adjustments or a vacant role he suggested.
Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
Disability discrimination claim based on mother's disability struck out
A tribunal struck out a former employee's claim that she was discriminated against because of her caring responsibilities for her disabled mother, ruling that section 15 of the Equality Act does not cover discrimination by association.