Locum consultant's fixed-term contract not renewed: workforce review justified dismissal
An employment tribunal has ruled that an NHS trust fairly dismissed a locum consultant when it decided to recruit only substantive Consultants on the Specialist Register, ending the need for locum cover.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #locum-consultant
- #fixed-term-contract
- #some-other-substantial-reason
- #workforce-review
- #specialist-register
- #cesr-application
- #grievance-process
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a locum consultant on a series of fixed-term contracts from 9 October 2017.
- The respondent decided in December 2020 to recruit only substantive Consultants on the Specialist Register, ending the need for locum cover.
- The claimant was given notice of termination on 19 May 2021, effective 31 August 2021, after earlier notice was rescinded.
- The claimant's grievances about bullying and the reason for dismissal were investigated through three stages and not upheld.
- The claimant was offered alternative roles as a specialty doctor but did not apply within the extended deadline.
- The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was a substantial reason (SOSR) and the respondent acted reasonably.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began continuous employment with the respondent as a Fellow in Vitreo-Retinal Surgery.
-
CESR application submitted
Claimant submitted his application to the GMC for specialist registration through the CESR process.
-
Locum consultant contract
Claimant entered a 12-month fixed-term contract as a locum consultant.
-
Consultants' meeting
Claimant attended a meeting of Consultants where it was discussed that the department needed to recruit a Consultant and a specialty doctor.
-
Meeting with Mr Smith
Claimant raised concerns about bullying by Mr Ramasamy and asked for an investigation into a patient matter.
-
Forewarning meeting
Mr Smith told the claimant that if a Consultant was appointed, his contract would likely not be extended. Mr Smith referred to a list of 18 concerns.
-
First termination letter
Mr Smith wrote to the claimant terminating his contract with effect from 31 March 2021.
-
Notice rescinded
After a without prejudice meeting, the notice was rescinded and the claimant's employment continued beyond 31 March 2021.
-
Second termination letter
Garry Sweeney gave notice of termination of the fixed-term contract, effective 31 August 2021, citing the recruitment of substantive Consultants.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended after the notice period.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract due to a workforce review amounted to 'some other substantial reason' for dismissal, and whether the employer acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
Key reasons:
- The trust's decision to recruit only substantive Consultants on the Specialist Register was a substantial reason capable of justifying dismissal.
- The trust acted reasonably by offering the claimant alternative roles as a specialty doctor and extending the deadline for applications.
- The claimant's grievances about bullying and the reason for dismissal were investigated through three stages and not upheld.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can rely on workforce restructuring as a 'some other substantial reason' for dismissal, provided the reason is genuine and they act reasonably.
- Offering alternative roles and following a fair process, including grievance procedures, strengthens an employer's case at tribunal.
- Fixed-term contract employees should be aware that non-renewal due to business needs may be fair if the employer has a substantial reason and acts reasonably.
Workforce restructuring as a fair reason for dismissal
This case shows that a genuine workforce review can be a fair reason to end a fixed-term contract, even when the employee has raised concerns about bullying or patient safety. The locum consultant, who had nearly four years' service, argued that his dismissal was linked to his complaints. However, the tribunal accepted that the trust's decision to recruit only substantive Consultants on the Specialist Register was a substantial reason, unconnected to his grievances.
What the trust did right
The trust could have handled the process better, but it took several steps that helped its case. It gave the claimant notice of the impending change in December 2020, offered alternative roles as a specialty doctor, and extended the deadline for applications. It also investigated the claimant's grievances through three stages, even though the outcome was not in his favour. The tribunal noted that the trust's actions were within the range of reasonable responses for an employer in its position.
What this means for similar claims
Employees on fixed-term contracts should understand that non-renewal due to business needs can be fair if the employer has a genuine reason and follows a fair process. Raising grievances does not automatically protect against dismissal if the employer can show a separate, substantial reason. For employers, this case reinforces the importance of clear communication, offering alternatives, and maintaining a proper grievance process.
Similar cases
NHS business coordinator dismissed after refusing restructured role: 'some other substantial reason' upheld
A tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination by a Business Coordinator who refused a restructured role and went on sick leave. The dismissal for 'some other substantial reason' was fair.
Supply teacher's role ended after permanent appointment: dismissal upheld as 'some other substantial reason'
A tribunal dismissed claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal brought by a supply teacher whose role ended when a permanent teacher was appointed. No compensation was awarded.
Dismissed after raising multiple grievances: breakdown in working relationships as a fair reason
A tribunal has ruled that University College London fairly dismissed a teaching fellow with 15 years' service after a series of grievances and tribunal claims led to an irreparable breakdown in working relationships. No compensation was awarded.
Dismissed after visa sponsorship became impossible: Home Office rule change was 'some other substantial reason'
A tribunal has ruled that Fintru Limited fairly dismissed an associate whose skilled worker visa could not be renewed after the Home Office raised salary thresholds. The employer explored alternatives and followed a reasonable process.