Assistant team manager dismissed for redundancy after suspension: process found fair
A tribunal ruled that Buckinghamshire County Council fairly dismissed an assistant team manager by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims that the real reason was her earlier disciplinary suspension.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #restructure
- #interview-scoring
- #disciplinary-overlap
- #suspension
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from February 2009 as an Assistant Team Manager in the Family Resilience Service.
- The claimant was suspended in November 2018 following a child protection incident involving her grandchildren.
- A disciplinary process resulted in a final written warning in July 2019.
- The respondent restructured the service, deleting all old posts and creating 104 new roles.
- The claimant applied for an Assistant Team Manager role but scored 18/35 and was not appointed.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 14 November 2019.
Timeline
-
Child protection incident
Police attended the claimant's daughter's home; no criminal investigation, but social care investigation triggered.
-
Claimant notified employer
Claimant informed her line manager of the incident.
-
Meeting with Gareth Morgan
Claimant met with Head of Service and provided full background.
-
Suspension and gross misconduct allegations
Claimant was formally suspended and notified of allegations of gross misconduct.
-
IIO report found allegations unsubstantiated
Independent Investigating Officer recommended return to work.
-
LADO challenged investigation outcome
Local Authority Designated Officer requested further investigation.
-
Morgan conducted further investigation interview
Gareth Morgan interviewed the claimant; later found allegations substantiated.
-
Restructure consultation began
Employees formally notified of restructuring; old posts deleted.
-
Claimant interviewed for ATM role
Claimant scored 18/35 and was not considered appointable.
-
Final written warning issued
Disciplinary hearing chair found allegations substantiated and issued final written warning.
-
Employment terminated by reason of redundancy
Claimant was dismissed as redundant.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was genuinely due to redundancy or whether it was a pretext for dismissal linked to earlier disciplinary proceedings, and whether the overall redundancy process was fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that Buckinghamshire County Council had a genuine redundancy situation following a restructure that deleted all old posts and created new ones. The claimant scored 18/35 in an interview for a new role and was not appointed, leading to her dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The redundancy situation was real and not a sham.
- The dismissal was due to redundancy, not the disciplinary history.
- The interview and scoring process was within the range of reasonable responses.
- No suitable alternative employment was available that the claimant was qualified for.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine restructure that eliminates posts can be a fair reason for dismissal, even if the employee has a recent disciplinary history.
- Employers should ensure redundancy selection criteria are objective and consistently applied, including interview scoring where relevant.
- Employees should be aware that a redundancy process can run concurrently with disciplinary matters without automatically making the dismissal unfair.
- The tribunal will look at whether the redundancy was the real reason for dismissal, not just whether there was some other issue in the background.
When redundancy and discipline collide
This case shows how a genuine redundancy process can survive a challenge even when the employee had been suspended and disciplined shortly before. The assistant team manager had worked for Buckinghamshire County Council for over ten years when a child protection incident involving her grandchildren led to her suspension and a final written warning. Shortly after the disciplinary outcome, the council began a major restructure that deleted all existing posts and created 104 new roles.
The claimant applied for a new assistant team manager role but scored 18 out of 35 in the interview, below the threshold for appointment. She was dismissed by reason of redundancy and argued that the real reason was the earlier disciplinary proceedings, not the restructure.
What the tribunal decided
The Employment Judge rejected that argument. The restructure was genuine — the old posts were gone and new ones created. The claimant's dismissal was triggered by her failure to secure one of the new roles, not by her disciplinary record. The interview process was within the range of reasonable responses, and there was no suitable alternative vacancy that she could have been offered.
The tribunal also noted that the council had consulted with employees and followed a fair process overall. The fact that the disciplinary and redundancy processes overlapped did not make the dismissal unfair, as long as the redundancy was the real reason.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this is a reminder that a redundancy dismissal can be fair even when it follows closely on the heels of a disciplinary sanction. The key question is whether the redundancy situation is genuine and whether the dismissal is truly due to redundancy rather than a pretext. For employers, the case underscores the importance of having a clear, objective selection process and being able to show that the redundancy was the operative reason for dismissal, not a desire to get rid of a difficult employee.
Similar cases
Long-serving clerk made redundant after restructure: dismissal upheld
A charity's decision to delete a clerk and receiver role and replace it with a general manager post was fair, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
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.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.