Administrator made redundant by small charity: dismissal fair despite consultation shortcomings
An employment tribunal has ruled that a small charity's decision to make a long-serving administrator redundant was fair, even though the consultation process was flawed. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #small-charity
- #volunteer-trustees
- #covid-19-impact
- #polkey-reduction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an administrator from 12 May 2012 to 16 March 2022.
- The respondent is a small charity run by volunteer trustees.
- The claimant's role included administration of events, scholarships, and the AIA magazine.
- Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the death of a major donor, the charity's activities diminished.
- The trustees decided to cancel the annual dinner and move the magazine online, reducing the need for the claimant's role.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy after a consultation process.
Timeline
-
Trustees discuss redundancy
Corporate trustees meeting noted diminished requirement for claimant's work and resolved to start redundancy process.
-
Board meeting confirms redundancy plan
Board decided to start redundancy process subject to legal clarification.
-
Claimant informed of potential redundancy
Ms Beth telephoned claimant and sent letter inviting her to a consultation meeting on 28 February.
-
First consultation meeting
Meeting held by Zoom; claimant attended with her sister (ED) who was asked to leave. Meeting was short.
-
Claimant responds to redundancy proposal
Claimant set out workload details and requested consultation by email due to health reasons.
-
Claimant raises grievance
Claimant raised grievance about the redundancy process.
-
Dismissal notice
Ms Beth sent formal notification of redundancy with immediate effect.
-
Appeal against dismissal
Claimant appealed against redundancy decision.
-
Appeal dismissed
Professor Hochhauser informed claimant that appeal was not upheld.
-
Grievance dismissed
Professor Hochhauser dismissed the grievance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy (a potentially fair reason) and, if so, whether the dismissal was fair or unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
- The tribunal accepted that the respondent, a small charity run by volunteer trustees, had a genuine redundancy situation due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the death of a major donor.
- Although the consultation process was found to be 'somewhat limited' and procedurally flawed, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning that even with a fair process, the claimant would have been dismissed anyway.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Small charities with volunteer trustees may have limited resources for redundancy processes, but they must still act reasonably.
- A genuine redundancy situation can exist even if the employer's financial position is not dire — a reduction in the need for work is enough.
- Procedural flaws in consultation do not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the outcome would have been the same.
- Claimants should be aware that Polkey reductions can eliminate compensation entirely if the tribunal finds dismissal was inevitable.
- It is important to set out all alternative reasons for dismissal clearly in the claim form to avoid procedural objections.
When a small charity makes a redundancy decision
This case shows how employment tribunals approach redundancy dismissals in small organisations with limited resources. The claimant, an administrator with 10 years' service, was made redundant by the Anglo Israel Association, a small charity run by volunteer trustees. The charity's activities had diminished due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the death of a major donor, leading to the cancellation of its annual dinner and the move of its magazine online.
The tribunal accepted that these changes genuinely reduced the need for the claimant's role. However, the consultation process was 'somewhat limited' — the first meeting was short, the claimant's sister was asked to leave, and the claimant's request for consultation by email was not fully accommodated.
Why the dismissal was still fair
Despite these procedural flaws, the tribunal found that a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway. This is known as a Polkey reduction — here applied at 100%, meaning no compensation was payable. The key factor was that the redundancy was genuine and there was no suitable alternative employment.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's argument that the real reason was her sister's dismissal for gross misconduct, noting this was not clearly set out in the claim form.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals take a realistic view of what small organisations can do. While a fair process is important, the ultimate question is whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. For employees, it highlights the importance of clearly stating all grounds of complaint early in proceedings, and for employers, that even a flawed process can be saved if the outcome was inevitable.
Similar cases
Global Head of Marketing dismissed for redundancy after salary stopped: £89,013 awarded
A tribunal found that a medical technology company unfairly dismissed its Global Head of Marketing by making him redundant without consultation, and awarded him £89,013 including £74,800 in unpaid salary.
Part-time worker dismissed for redundancy without consultation: unfair dismissal but no discrimination
A part-time Operations Assistant with Long Covid was unfairly dismissed when her employer decided to make her redundant before any consultation. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but applied a 60% Polkey reduction.
Spray polisher unfairly dismissed after hip replacements: employer refused phased return
A spray polisher with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer refused his proposed phased return following bilateral hip replacements. The tribunal awarded £4,250 but rejected disability discrimination claims.
Accounts manager made redundant without being offered available part-time role
An accounts manager with 15 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to offer her a part-time role that became available during her notice period. The tribunal awarded £250 for loss of statutory rights.