Long-serving clerk made redundant after restructure: dismissal upheld
A charity's decision to delete a clerk and receiver role and replace it with a general manager post was fair, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a clerk and receiver from May 1991 until 31 August 2020.
- The charity decided to delete the clerk and receiver role and create a general manager post with wider duties.
- The claimant was consulted about the redundancy in three meetings and offered the chance to apply for the new role, which she declined.
- The claimant was paid redundancy pay of £3,625.20 and holiday pay of £483.23 on termination.
- The tribunal found the claimant was aware of her right to annual leave and had taken leave during her employment.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as a clerk and receiver for the charity.
-
Strategic review commenced
Reverend Gibson started a strategic review of the charity, leading to a proposed restructure.
-
Trustees agreed to restructure
Trustees decided to delete the clerk and receiver role and create a general manager post.
-
Draft contract sent
Reverend Gibson sent a draft employment contract to the claimant, which included annual leave entitlement.
-
First consultation meeting
A telephone meeting was held to discuss the proposed redundancy and the new general manager role.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant proposed an alternative of two roles, which was later rejected by trustees.
-
Third consultation meeting
The claimant confirmed she did not wish to apply for the general manager role.
-
Notice of dismissal served
The claimant was formally given notice, with employment ending on 31 December 2020.
-
Appeal hearing
An appeal was heard by trustee Mary Briggs, who upheld the dismissal.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended, earlier than the original notice date, by agreement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and whether she was entitled to unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the charity had a genuine business need to restructure, and the redundancy of the clerk and receiver role was genuine. The consultation process, while not perfect, was reasonable given the small size of the charity. The claimant was offered the chance to apply for the new general manager role but declined. The appeal process was also fair.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant was aware of her right to paid annual leave and had taken leave during her employment. She was paid holiday pay on termination, and there was no evidence that the charity prevented her from taking leave.
Lessons & takeaways
- Small employers may be held to a lower standard of consultation, but must still show genuine redundancy and fair process.
- Offering an employee the chance to apply for a new role created in a restructure can help demonstrate fairness.
- Employees should keep records of annual leave taken and ensure they understand their entitlement to avoid disputes on termination.
- Long service alone does not guarantee a finding of unfair dismissal if the redundancy is genuine and process is reasonable.
A restructure that passed the fairness test
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed for redundancy when an employer genuinely restructures. The clerk and receiver had worked for the charity for 29 years, but the trustees decided the role no longer met the charity's needs and created a broader general manager post. The charity consulted with the employee over three meetings and offered her the chance to apply for the new role, which she declined.
The tribunal accepted that the redundancy was genuine and that the consultation, while not elaborate, was appropriate for a small charity with limited resources. The employee's appeal was heard by a different trustee, adding procedural fairness.
What the charity did right
The charity could have done more to explore alternatives, but the tribunal noted its size and the fact that the employee proposed splitting the role into two, which the trustees reasonably rejected as unworkable. The key takeaway is that a fair process does not require endless consultation; it requires genuine consideration of alternatives and clear communication.
Holiday pay claim rejected
The employee also claimed unpaid holiday pay, arguing she had not been allowed to take leave. However, the tribunal found she was aware of her entitlement and had taken leave during her employment. The holiday pay paid on termination was correct, and there was no evidence the charity prevented her from taking leave.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that redundancy is a fair reason for dismissal if the employer can show a genuine business need and a reasonable process. For small employers, it confirms that a proportionate approach to consultation can be enough, provided the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses.
Similar cases
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.
Kitchen manager dismissed without consultation in redundancy: unfair dismissal
A kitchen manager with two years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without any consultation or warning. The tribunal awarded £4,809.49 in compensation.
Theatre manager with 18 years' service dismissed on capability grounds: disability and unfair dismissal claims fail
A theatre manager who was dismissed after two long periods of sickness absence lost her claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, but won a small holiday pay award.
Waitress with 22 years' service loses unfair dismissal claim due to time limits
A waitress who worked for Lornar Ltd for 22 years had her unfair dismissal claim rejected because she missed the three-month time limit by several months.