Pre-school staff made redundant: who was the real employer?
Four pre-school employees claimed unfair dismissal after redundancy, but the tribunal first had to decide who their employer was – the management committee, the church council, or individuals.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #redundancy
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unincorporated-association
- #management-committee
- #employer-identity
Key facts
- The four claimants worked at St Philips Pre-school, which was run by the Management Committee of St Philips Community Centre.
- The Management Committee was an unincorporated association with a constitution.
- The claimants' contracts, payslips, and P60s named St Philips Community Centre as their employer.
- The redundancy process was conducted by the Management Committee, not the PCC.
- The PCC had no involvement in the day-to-day management of the pre-school.
- The tribunal found that the correct employer was the Management Committee, not the PCC or individual respondents.
Timeline
-
Mrs Wilson resigns
Mrs Wilson resigned from her employment and the Management Committee, effective 21 July 2021.
-
Pre-school closed temporarily
The pre-school was closed for a week due to unforeseen circumstances.
-
Ms Conroy resigns from Management Committee
Ms Conroy resigned as Secretary of the Management Committee with immediate effect.
-
PCC votes to close pre-school
The PCC voted to accept the proposal to close the pre-school due to financial viability.
-
Meeting with staff about closure
Mr Wood informed staff that the pre-school would close permanently due to low numbers and lack of funds.
-
Mrs Wilson's employment ends
Mrs Wilson's employment terminated following her resignation.
-
At risk of redundancy notices sent
The second, third, and fourth claimants received at risk of redundancy notices from Mr Wood.
-
Redundancy notices sent
The second, third, and fourth claimants received redundancy notices from Mr Wood, with termination date 31 August 2021.
-
Employment ends for three claimants
The second, third, and fourth claimants' employment terminated by reason of redundancy.
-
Mr Wood resigns as Chair
Mr Wood resigned as Chair of the Management Committee and from the PCC.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to determine the legal identity of the employer of four pre-school employees who were made redundant, as the respondents included a management committee, a church council, and several individuals.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the employer of all four claimants was the Management Committee of St Philips Community Centre, an unincorporated association. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) was removed as a respondent because it had no involvement in the day-to-day management of the pre-school. One individual, Ms Conroy, was also removed as she had resigned from the Management Committee before the redundancies. The tribunal ordered that additional members of the Management Committee be added as respondents to allow the claims to proceed.
No compensation was awarded at this preliminary stage, as the case was remitted for a final hearing on the merits of the unfair dismissal and redundancy claims.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work for a small organisation like a pre-school run by a committee, check your contract and payslips to see who is named as your employer – that entity is likely to be the correct respondent in a tribunal claim.
- Unincorporated associations (like management committees) can be sued in their own name, but you may need to identify the individuals who were members at the time of dismissal.
- If you are unsure who your employer is, the tribunal can hold a preliminary hearing to decide the issue before the main case proceeds.
- Resigning before a redundancy may affect your entitlement to a redundancy payment, especially if you claim constructive dismissal – get legal advice early.
When the employer is unclear, the tribunal sorts it out first
Four employees of a pre-school in Manchester were made redundant in 2021 after the management committee decided to close the nursery due to financial difficulties. But when they brought claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy pay, they faced an unusual problem: who exactly was their employer? The respondents listed included the community centre, several individuals, and the local church council (PCC). The tribunal had to hold a preliminary hearing to sort out the employer's identity before the main claims could be heard.
The employees' contracts, payslips, and P60s all named St Philips Community Centre as their employer. The redundancy process was carried out by the Management Committee, not the PCC. The tribunal found that the PCC had no role in the day-to-day running of the pre-school. As a result, the correct employer was the Management Committee – an unincorporated association with a constitution. The PCC and one former committee member who had resigned before the redundancies were removed from the proceedings.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that when a small organisation like a pre-school is run by a voluntary committee, the legal employer may not be obvious. The tribunal's role is to identify the entity that actually controlled the employment relationship. For employees, this means checking your contract and payslips carefully. For employers, it highlights the importance of having a clear legal structure and ensuring that the entity named as employer is the one that can be sued.
The case was remitted for a final hearing, so the employees' unfair dismissal and redundancy claims will still be decided. But the preliminary ruling means they now know who to pursue – and that the church council and an individual who left early are off the hook.
Similar cases
Dismissed for redundancy that wasn't genuine: a warning for employers
A former employee was unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to prove a genuine redundancy exercise. The tribunal awarded £1,921.85 in compensation.
Governance Manager's discrimination and unfair dismissal claims rejected
A Governance Manager who brought multiple claims of discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal after being made redundant has lost her case. The tribunal ordered her to pay £20,000 in costs.
17-year bar stewardess made redundant without consultation after club closure
A bar stewardess with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Halliwell Conservative Club closed without consulting her. The tribunal awarded £12,883.98 in redundancy and holiday pay but no compensation as closure was inevitable.
Deputy town clerk dismissed after raising fire alarm safety concerns: whistleblowing detriment claim succeeds
A deputy town clerk with only three months' service was dismissed after repeatedly raising concerns about a failing fire alarm system. The tribunal found he suffered detriment for whistleblowing but dismissed his automatic unfair dismissal claim.