Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #redundancy
- #parental-complaint
- #grievance-procedure
- #selection-process
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Attendance Officer from 1 March 2010 until 27 March 2020.
- A parent made a formal complaint against the claimant on 22 November 2018, which was investigated by the School Business Manager.
- The school underwent a restructure of the administration team, reducing three part-time roles to two full-time equivalent roles.
- The claimant scored 31 in the selection process, while the other two candidates scored 47 and 44.
- The claimant was dismissed on the ground of redundancy on 27 March 2020.
- The claimant raised six grievances, which were investigated and largely rejected at three stages.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as an Attendance Officer at Beechwood Primary School.
-
Parental complaint
A parent submitted an official complaint against the claimant regarding a telephone call.
-
Meeting with Ms Cowen
Ms Cowen met the claimant to discuss the complaint and gave management advice.
-
Claimant's complaint against Ms Cowen
The claimant raised a complaint against Ms Cowen, alleging discrimination.
-
Consultation on restructure
A consultation meeting was held with all impacted staff regarding the administration team restructure.
-
At risk letters
The claimant and two other staff members were sent 'at risk' letters.
-
Selection interviews
The claimant and two other staff members were interviewed for the new roles.
-
Claimant informed of non-selection
The claimant was told she had not been successful in the selection process.
-
Notice of termination
The claimant was sent a notice of termination, conditional on the outcome of a representation meeting.
-
First formal grievance
The claimant submitted the first of six formal grievances.
-
Representation meeting
The head teacher held the representation meeting and confirmed the dismissal.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed on the ground of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was unfair and whether she was subjected to race discrimination, harassment, or victimisation in connection with a parental complaint and a subsequent redundancy process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the redundancy was genuine and the selection process was fair. The claimant scored lower than her colleagues in the selection process and was therefore selected for redundancy. The tribunal also found no evidence of race discrimination, harassment, or victimisation in relation to the parental complaint or the redundancy process. The six grievances raised by the claimant were properly investigated and rejected at all stages.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation and a fair selection process can justify dismissal even if the employee has a long service record.
- Grievances that are properly investigated and rejected at multiple stages are unlikely to support a claim of unfair dismissal or discrimination.
- Race discrimination claims require evidence of less favourable treatment because of race; a poor performance in a selection process is not itself evidence of discrimination.
- Employers should ensure that redundancy selection criteria are objective and applied consistently to avoid claims of unfairness.
A restructure that led to redundancy
This case shows how a school's decision to restructure its administration team led to the redundancy of a long-serving Attendance Officer. The claimant had worked at the school for ten years, but when three part-time roles were reduced to two full-time equivalents, a selection process was carried out. The claimant scored 31 points, while the other two candidates scored 47 and 44. She was therefore selected for redundancy.
The claimant argued that the redundancy was a sham and that she had been discriminated against because of her race. She also pointed to a parental complaint made against her in 2018, which she said had tainted the process. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support these claims. The complaint had been investigated and management advice given, but it did not influence the redundancy selection.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal concluded that the redundancy was genuine and the selection process was fair. The scoring was based on objective criteria, and the claimant's lower score was due to her performance in the interview and assessment, not any discriminatory motive. The six grievances she raised were also properly investigated at three stages, with each stage rejecting her complaints. The tribunal found no procedural unfairness or evidence of race discrimination.
Lessons for employees and employers
For employees, this case highlights that a genuine redundancy process can lead to a fair dismissal even after a long service. Grievances that are thoroughly investigated and rejected are unlikely to help a claim of unfair dismissal. For employers, the key takeaway is the importance of having objective selection criteria and applying them consistently. The tribunal was satisfied that the school did this, and the claim failed as a result.
Similar cases
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Deputy principal dismissed for redundancy after consultation meeting lacked clear purpose
A deputy principal with 14 years' service was unfairly dismissed after the trust failed to tell her the purpose of a redundancy consultation meeting. The tribunal awarded no compensation, however, finding she would have been dismissed anyway.
Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
Line Driver's discrimination claims dismissed as out of time after redundancy
An employment tribunal dismissed all discrimination claims brought by a part-time Line Driver with 4 years' service against Manheim Limited, finding they were brought too late and lacked merit. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn.