Constructive dismissal after low-code/no-code restructure: tribunal finds redundancy
A computer programmer with 20 years' service was constructively dismissed after her employer adopted a 'low code/no code' approach. The tribunal found the restructure amounted to a redundancy situation and the grievance process was mishandled.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #redundancy
- #low-code-no-code
- #deskilling
- #grievance-handling
- #civil-servant
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent as a skilled computer programmer for about 20 years.
- The respondent adopted a 'low code / no code' approach, reducing bespoke programming work.
- The claimant raised a grievance arguing this was a redundancy situation, which was not upheld.
- The grievance process took over 2.5 months and was handled by the deputy of the manager who implemented the change.
- The claimant resigned on 15 November 2021, the day after the grievance outcome meeting.
- The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed by reason of redundancy.
Timeline
-
Started work
The claimant started working for the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC) as a junior applications developer.
-
Transferred to respondent
Her employment transferred to the Office for Students upon merger, role mapped to 'Digital Developer'.
-
Restructure announced
The Chief Technology Officer began looking to restructure the IT department.
-
Low code / no code approach
A document indicated the respondent would adopt a 'configuration over code' approach, causing the claimant concern.
-
Consultation announced
Consultations about the changes were announced, but no discussion about whether it was a redundancy situation.
-
Plan sent to staff
The strategic plan for low code / no code was sent to the claimant and others.
-
Union response
The PCS union submitted a detailed response opposing the changes.
-
Signed off sick
The claimant was signed off work with work-related stress, anxiety and depression.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant raised a six-page grievance arguing the restructure was a redundancy situation.
-
Grievance report
Andrew Beaton provided his report, concluding the new role was not fundamentally different.
-
Grievance outcome meeting
Andrew Jackson held a meeting and upheld the original decision, rejecting the redundancy claim.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned with immediate effect, citing the grievance outcome as the final straw.
-
New job started
The claimant started a new job at a similar salary.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's reorganisation to a low-code/no-code approach constituted a redundancy situation, and whether the handling of the employee's grievance about this amounted to a fundamental breach of contract leading to constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy.
Key reasons:
- The change to low-code/no-code substantially reduced the need for bespoke programming, which was the claimant's core role.
- The grievance process took over 2.5 months and was handled by the deputy of the manager who implemented the change, undermining trust.
- The employer failed to recognise the redundancy situation and imposed the change through to the grievance conclusion.
Compensation:
- The claimant is entitled to a basic award and compensatory award for unfair dismissal.
- No statutory redundancy payment due to civil service status (s.159 Employment Rights Act 1996).
- A remedy hearing will be listed to determine the amount.
Lessons & takeaways
- A significant change in working methods that reduces the need for a particular skill can be a redundancy situation, even if the employer calls it an 'evolution'.
- Grievances about fundamental changes to a role should be handled promptly and by someone independent of the decision-maker to avoid a breach of trust.
- Long-serving employees are more likely to succeed in constructive dismissal claims if the employer fails to properly consider whether a restructure is a redundancy.
- Civil servants cannot claim statutory redundancy payments but may be entitled to compensation under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.
When 'evolution' becomes redundancy
This case shows how an employer's decision to change its approach to IT work can have serious legal consequences. The Office for Students decided to move from bespoke programming to a 'low code / no code' model, buying off-the-shelf packages and configuring them. For a computer programmer who had spent 20 years designing and writing whole programs, this was not a simple evolution of her role—it was a fundamental change that reduced the need for her core skills.
The tribunal found that the employer's failure to recognise this as a redundancy situation, and the way it handled the employee's grievance about it, amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The employee resigned the day after the grievance outcome meeting, which the tribunal accepted as a constructive dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by properly analysing whether the restructure created a redundancy situation. Instead, it pressed ahead with the change and dealt with the grievance through a manager who was the deputy of the person who implemented the change. The process took over 2.5 months, and the employee was signed off sick with stress during much of it. A fairer process—with independent handling and a genuine consideration of whether the role had changed so much that it was no longer the job she was employed to do—might have led to a different result.
Why this matters
For employees facing similar changes, this case is a reminder that a significant shift in working methods can be a redundancy, even if the employer insists it is just an evolution. For employers, it highlights the importance of handling restructures and grievances carefully, especially when long-serving staff are affected. The tribunal's finding that the dismissal was unfair means the employee is entitled to compensation, although as a civil servant she cannot claim a statutory redundancy payment and must instead seek redress under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed after employer ignored redundancy request for 39 days
A former People Advisor who resigned after her employer failed to respond to her redundancy request for 39 days has been allowed to pursue claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
Duty manager with 39 years' service wins constructive dismissal after split shifts imposed without consultation
A duty manager who resigned after her employer imposed split shifts and reduced hours without consultation, and then failed to address her grievance for over a month, has been awarded £10,683.75 for constructive unfair dismissal.
Team manager awarded £18,900 after removal of duties and disciplinary action
A team manager with eight years' service was constructively dismissed after his employer removed all managerial duties for over 10 months and then disciplined him for swearing. The tribunal awarded £18,923.
Constructive dismissal: grievance handled by the very manager complained about
A general manager who resigned after his grievance was assigned to the manager he complained about, and who was then suspended pending disciplinary proceedings, has won his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded £4,354.33.