21-year teacher loses unfair dismissal claim after redundancy consultation
A Subject Leader with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed when her school restructured its EAL department. The tribunal found the consultation and consideration of alternative roles were reasonable.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #alternative-employment
- #eal-coordinator
- #consultation
- #redeployment
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 1 September 2000 until 31 August 2021 as Subject Leader EAL.
- The respondent restructured the EAL department due to financial difficulties and a modernisation of EAL provision.
- The claimant was at risk of redundancy from March 2021 and consulted extensively.
- The EAL Coordinator role was considered inferior and not suitable alternative employment.
- The claimant did not apply for the EAL Coordinator role or other redeployment opportunities.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and the respondent acted reasonably.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent.
-
Informal meeting arranged
Mr Moriarty emailed the claimant to discuss the school budget and EAL provision.
-
Informal meeting held
The claimant was asked to provide suggestions for saving money in the EAL department.
-
Claimant confirms no proposals
The claimant emailed Mr Moriarty stating she had no proposals to save money.
-
Consultation meeting with union
Mr Moriarty presented the restructuring proposal to trade union representatives.
-
Individual consultation meeting
The claimant met with Mr Moriarty, accompanied by her union rep, and was informed of the EAL Coordinator role.
-
At risk letter
The claimant received a letter confirming her post was at risk of redundancy.
-
Second consultation meeting
The claimant queried the redundancy and asked about taking redundancy and applying for the EAL Coordinator role.
-
Claimant's response to consultation
The claimant submitted an 11-page response to the consultation document.
-
Governing body approves restructuring
The plan to abolish the EAL department was approved.
-
Redeployment opportunities notified
The claimant was informed of four redeployment opportunities but did not apply.
-
Compulsory redundancy confirmed
The claimant was informed she would be made compulsorily redundant.
-
EAL Coordinator role advertised
The respondent advertised the EAL Coordinator role on the TLS website.
-
Science post notified
The claimant was emailed details of a part-time temporary science post.
-
Claimant learns of EAL advert
A colleague sent the claimant a link to the EAL Coordinator advert; the claimant did not open it.
-
Grievance lodged
The claimant lodged a grievance but did not mention the EAL Coordinator role.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's last day of service.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal by reason of redundancy was fair or unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, considering whether the respondent acted reasonably in its consultation, consideration of alternative employment, and overall process.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and her claim was dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent had a genuine redundancy situation due to financial difficulties and modernisation of EAL provision.
- The consultation process was extensive and the claimant's questions were answered.
- The claimant was offered redeployment opportunities but did not apply for them, including the EAL Coordinator role which she considered inferior.
- The respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed if the employer follows a proper redundancy process with genuine consultation.
- If you are offered alternative roles during redundancy, you should consider applying for them — rejecting them outright may weaken a later unfair dismissal claim.
- Employers should document all consultation steps and ensure they consider suitable alternative employment, but they are not required to create a role that matches the employee's previous position exactly.
- A grievance that does not raise concerns about the redundancy process at the time may limit the issues a tribunal will consider.
A restructure that passed the fairness test
This case shows how a well-documented redundancy process can withstand scrutiny even when a long-serving employee feels the outcome was unfair. The Subject Leader, who had taught at the school for 21 years, was dismissed when the school decided to restructure its English as an Additional Language (EAL) department due to financial pressures and a modernisation of provision.
The tribunal heard that the school consulted with the claimant and her union representative over several months, considered her suggestions, and offered her opportunities to apply for other roles — including a part-time science post and the newly created EAL Coordinator position. The claimant did not apply for any of these roles, believing the EAL Coordinator job was inferior and that she should have been offered it automatically.
What the employer did right
The school followed a structured redundancy process: it issued an at-risk letter, held multiple consultation meetings, and notified the claimant of redeployment opportunities. Crucially, it did not simply dismiss the claimant without exploring alternatives. The tribunal noted that the respondent acted within the 'band of reasonable responses' — the legal test for fairness — even though the claimant disagreed with the outcome.
One key point was that the claimant did not apply for the EAL Coordinator role, despite being aware of it. She later argued she should have been given more time or information, but the tribunal found the school had acted reasonably in advertising the role and not offering it automatically.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal, and the focus is on the process, not the result. Employees who are at risk of redundancy should engage with consultation and consider all alternative roles offered. Employers, meanwhile, should ensure they document every step and give genuine consideration to redeployment — but they are not required to create a perfect match for the employee's previous job.
Similar cases
Warehouse team leader loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy alternative role dispute
A warehouse team leader with 9 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after a misunderstanding over an alternative role offer, the tribunal has ruled.
21-year assistant manager loses redundancy claim despite long service
An assistant manager with 21 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after scoring lower than a colleague on selection criteria. The tribunal upheld Boots' process.
Redundancy during restructuring: tribunal finds process fair despite unsuccessful alternative role applications
A Delivery Programme Manager who lost his job in a large-scale restructure at Raytheon Systems Ltd has failed to prove his redundancy was unfair. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation and a fair process.
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.