Library assistant made redundant by email: no consultation, unfair dismissal
A library assistant with 14 years' service was dismissed by email without any warning or consultation. The tribunal awarded £1,301 after finding the dismissal unfair, but reduced compensation by 80% because she would likely have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Library Assistant from 28 July 2006 until 14 August 2020.
- The respondent is a small charitable library run by unpaid trustees.
- The claimant was dismissed by email on 14 August 2020 without any prior warning or consultation.
- The respondent conceded the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996.
- The tribunal found a 80% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed following a fair procedure.
- The claimant did not seek alternative employment after dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Library Assistant with the General Committee of Plymouth Proprietary Library.
-
Previous redundancy process
Claimant was warned of possible redundancy; a selection exercise took place and claimant was retained.
-
TUPE transfer
Plymouth Proprietary Library became a Charitable Incorporated Organisation; claimant's employment transferred.
-
Library closed due to Covid-19
Respondent forced to close; claimant placed on furlough.
-
Trustees' meeting
Trustees decided to reduce opening hours and make claimant redundant, retaining Mr Horton.
-
Dismissal
Claimant received email informing her she was made redundant effective immediately, with pay in lieu of notice.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the redundancy decision.
-
Appeal rejected
Trustees responded, confirming Mr Horton remained employed and dismissal not revoked.
-
Library Manager role advertised
Respondent advertised for a Library Manager; claimant did not apply.
-
New Library Manager started
A new Library Manager commenced employment; Mr Horton gave notice to retire.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide remedy only, as the respondent conceded unfair dismissal. The issues were whether to order reinstatement or re-engagement, and the amount of compensation, including reductions for the chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway (Polkey) and failure to mitigate loss.
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed but refused reinstatement or re-engagement because the working relationship had broken down.
Compensation was calculated as follows:
- Basic award: £207.84 (after deducting a statutory redundancy payment of £1,247.04)
- Compensatory award for loss of earnings: £1,033.26 (reduced by 80% for the chance of fair dismissal)
- Loss of statutory rights: £60 (reduced by 80%)
- Total: £1,301.10
Lessons & takeaways
- Even small employers with limited resources must follow a fair procedure before making someone redundant, including consultation and considering alternatives.
- Dismissing an employee by email without any prior warning is almost certain to be found unfair, regardless of the employer's size.
- If you do not apply for suitable vacancies after dismissal, the tribunal may reduce your compensation for failing to mitigate your loss.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly cut compensation if the tribunal thinks a fair process would still have led to dismissal.
This case shows how a small employer's lack of formal HR processes can lead to an unfair dismissal finding, even when the redundancy itself may have been genuine. The claimant, a library assistant with 14 years' service, was dismissed by email after the trustees decided to reduce opening hours due to the financial impact of the pandemic. No consultation took place, and no alternative roles were considered.
What went wrong for the employer
The respondent, a charitable library run by unpaid trustees, conceded that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The key failing was the complete absence of any procedure: no warning, no meeting, no opportunity for the claimant to respond. Even a brief consultation might have made the difference. The trustees also failed to consider whether the claimant could be redeployed, for example into the library manager role that was advertised a year later.
Why the compensation was low
Despite winning her case, the claimant received only £1,301. This is because the tribunal applied an 80% Polkey reduction, finding it likely that a fair process would still have resulted in her dismissal. The claimant also did not apply for the library manager role advertised in November 2021, which the tribunal considered a failure to mitigate her loss. This highlights that claimants must actively seek work to maximise their compensation.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that even if you win on liability, compensation can be substantially reduced if the tribunal thinks you would have been dismissed anyway. For employers, especially small charities, it underscores the importance of following basic procedural fairness—even a simple conversation before making a decision can avoid a finding of unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Panel beater dismissed in redundancy: small employer's 'pool of one' upheld
A Watford tribunal has ruled that a panel beater with three years' service was fairly dismissed when his employer, a four-person car repair shop, made him redundant as the only employee at risk. The decision highlights how small employers can follow a lighter process.
Garden centre staff dismissed without warning: redundancy consultation failure
Four employees of Adrian Hall Ltd were unfairly dismissed when the garden centre closed without any consultation. The tribunal awarded £500 each for loss of continuity.
Driver made redundant without warning or consultation: unfair dismissal
A lorry driver was dismissed with immediate effect when his employer decided to make him redundant, with no warning, consultation, or fair selection process. The tribunal awarded £6,278.38.
President EMEA made redundant without consultation during pandemic: unfair dismissal
A senior executive with six years' service was dismissed for redundancy without any consultation or fair procedure, winning over £56,000 in compensation.