Beauty therapist made redundant while on maternity leave: partial win on payments
A beauty therapist with seven years' service was dismissed by redundancy while on maternity leave without consultation. The tribunal awarded her a statutory redundancy payment, notice pay, and holiday pay, but found the dismissal fair due to the salon's closure.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #maternity-leave
- #holiday-pay
- #notice-pay
- #polkey-deduction
- #papers-only-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a beauty therapist from 6 March 2015.
- The respondent's salon at Brampton Manor closed at the end of April 2022.
- On 31 May and 1 June 2022, the respondent communicated that it was ceasing trading and paid the claimant maternity and holiday pay.
- The tribunal found that those communications amounted to a dismissal by reason of redundancy.
- The claimant was on maternity leave from December 2021 until September 2022.
- The respondent did not consult with the claimant or offer suitable alternative employment before dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a beauty therapist.
-
Maternity leave started
The claimant commenced maternity leave, with a planned return on 21 September 2022.
-
Salon closed
The Brampton Manor premises closed for works, and the respondent ceased trading from that location.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Ms Parsons emailed the claimant a letter stating the company was ceasing trading and winding up, and paid maternity and holiday pay.
-
Respondent confirmed dismissal
Mr Lynch emailed the claimant, stating the company had no funds for redundancy and she should apply to the National Insurance Fund.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Papers-only hearing
The tribunal considered the case on papers and issued judgment the next day.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, whether the dismissal was fair, and what payments she was entitled to, including statutory redundancy, notice pay, and holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy when the salon closed. However, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to consult or consider alternative employment. Despite this, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning no compensation for unfair dismissal was awarded, as the redundancy was inevitable.
Compensation awarded:
- Statutory redundancy payment: £1,120.00
- Notice pay: £23.38
- Holiday pay: £89.20
- Total: £1,232.58
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees on maternity leave have enhanced protection in redundancy situations, but if the business genuinely closes, dismissal may still be fair.
- Employers must still follow a fair process, including consultation and considering alternative roles, even when a redundancy is inevitable.
- A Polkey reduction can reduce or eliminate compensation if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway, even with a fair process.
- Keep records of start dates and contractual variations, as disputes over service length can affect redundancy pay entitlement.
When a salon closes while you're on maternity leave
This case shows what can happen when a small business closes its doors while an employee is on maternity leave. The beauty therapist had worked for Brampton Manor Salon & Tea Rooms Ltd for seven years when the salon shut at the end of April 2022. She was on maternity leave at the time, expecting to return in September. Instead, she received emails in late May and early June telling her the company was ceasing trading and had no funds for redundancy.
The tribunal found that the emails amounted to a dismissal by reason of redundancy. The employer had not consulted the claimant or offered any suitable alternative employment. That made the dismissal procedurally unfair. But the tribunal also noted that the salon had genuinely closed and there was no other role available within the company. As a result, even if a fair process had been followed, the claimant would have been dismissed anyway. This led to a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning she received no compensation for unfair dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by consulting with the claimant before making the decision. Even a short conversation about the closure and any possible alternatives would have helped. The employer also failed to consider whether the claimant could have been redeployed elsewhere within the group of companies. While the tribunal accepted there were no suitable vacancies, a proper search would have strengthened the employer's position.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy dismissals during maternity leave are not automatically unfair. If the business genuinely closes and there is no alternative work, the dismissal can be fair. However, employers must still follow a fair process. Employees in this situation should check their entitlement to statutory redundancy pay, notice pay, and any outstanding holiday pay. The claimant here successfully recovered those sums, even though her unfair dismissal claim did not result in additional compensation.
Similar cases
Beautician dismissed after salon sale while on maternity leave: TUPE transfer made dismissal automatically unfair
A beautician and store manager was dismissed by her employer shortly after the salon was sold to a new company while she was on maternity leave. The tribunal found a TUPE transfer had occurred and the dismissal was automatically unfair, awarding £3,943.77.
Age discrimination in redundancy: 21-year worker awarded £11,400
A kitchen worker with 21 years' service was found to have been discriminated against on grounds of age when her employer failed to contact her about a redundancy. The tribunal awarded £11,400 including injury to feelings.
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.