School business manager dismissed before 55th birthday to avoid pension cost: age discrimination and unfair dismissal
A school business manager with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed and directly discriminated against on grounds of age when her redundancy was timed to avoid a pension strain payment. The tribunal found only a 10% chance she would have kept her job under a fair process.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-consultation
- #age-discrimination
- #pension-enhancement
- #polkey-reduction
- #procedural-unfairness
- #strain-payment
Key facts
- Mrs Millar was employed as School Business Manager at Fir Bank Primary School from 2004 until dismissal on 31 August 2021.
- The Oak Trust proposed deleting the Business Manager posts to achieve savings, with dismissal planned before Mrs Millar's 55th birthday to avoid a pension strain payment.
- The consultation process was flawed: Mrs Millar could not join the initial Teams meeting, her request for a one-to-one meeting was not arranged, and the dismissal was confirmed without meaningful consultation.
- The appeal panel focused on avoiding the pension strain payment and rejected Mrs Millar's request to restart consultation, which the tribunal found was influenced by her age.
- The tribunal found unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination, but assessed only a 10% chance that Mrs Millar would have remained in employment had a fair process been followed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mrs Millar started working at Fir Bank Primary School as School Business Manager.
-
Trust formed
The Oak Trust was formed, comprising three schools.
-
Review proposed
Mrs Hindle proposed a review of business operations, including Business Manager roles.
-
Proposal approved
Trust Board approved the proposal to delete Business Manager posts, with dismissal planned by 31 August 2021.
-
Initial consultation meeting
Mrs Millar could not connect to the Teams meeting; the meeting proceeded without her.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Change Committee approved redundancies; Mrs Millar was sent notice of dismissal effective 31 August 2021.
-
Appeal submitted
Mrs Millar appealed, requesting the consultation process be restarted.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal panel rejected the appeal, citing public purse concerns and Mrs Millar's pension timing.
-
Dismissal effective
Mrs Millar's employment terminated.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal and age discrimination; remedy hearing scheduled for 9 May 2023.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the redundancy dismissal was procedurally unfair and whether the employer's refusal to restart consultation after the claimant turned 55 amounted to direct age discrimination, given the financial incentive to dismiss before that age.
The outcome
The tribunal found that The Oak Trust unfairly dismissed the school business manager by conducting a flawed redundancy consultation. The claimant could not join the initial Teams meeting, her request for a one-to-one meeting was ignored, and dismissal was confirmed without meaningful discussion. The appeal panel focused on avoiding a pension strain payment, which the tribunal held was direct age discrimination.
Compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing, but the tribunal made key findings:
- A fair process would have delayed dismissal until after the claimant's 55th birthday (18 September 2021).
- The chance of the claimant remaining employed beyond that point was only 10% (Polkey reduction of 90%).
- No contributory fault was found.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure redundancy consultation is meaningful and inclusive, especially when technical issues prevent participation.
- Timing a dismissal to avoid pension costs or other age-related financial consequences can amount to direct age discrimination.
- A Polkey reduction of 90% shows that even when dismissal is unfair, compensation can be heavily reduced if the employee had little chance of keeping their job.
- Appeal panels must not be influenced by financial considerations tied to the employee's age; focusing on public purse concerns can be discriminatory.
When redundancy becomes discrimination
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward redundancy exercise can cross into unlawful discrimination when financial considerations are linked to an employee's age. The school business manager had worked for the trust for 17 years and was told her role was being deleted as part of a cost-saving review. But the trust's decision to push through the dismissal before her 55th birthday — which would have triggered a pension strain payment — was a critical factor.
The tribunal found that the consultation process was fundamentally flawed. The claimant could not join the initial Teams meeting, and her request for a one-to-one meeting was never arranged. Despite this, the trust confirmed her dismissal without any further discussion. When she appealed and asked for the consultation to be restarted after her birthday, the appeal panel refused, citing the need to avoid a cost to the public purse. That refusal was found to be direct age discrimination.
What the trust could have done differently
The trust could have avoided both findings by ensuring a fair and inclusive consultation process. If the initial meeting had been rescheduled or an alternative offered, the dismissal might have been procedurally fair. More importantly, the appeal panel should have considered the claimant's request on its merits, without regard to the pension timing. The tribunal noted that a fair process would have resulted in dismissal no earlier than 2 July 2021 — after her 55th birthday — meaning the pension strain payment would have been unavoidable.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes must be conducted fairly regardless of the financial implications for the employer. It also highlights that age discrimination can arise not just from overt statements but from decisions that are indirectly influenced by age-related costs. For employees in similar situations, the key takeaway is that a flawed consultation and discriminatory motive can both be challenged, even if the chance of keeping the job is low. The Polkey reduction of 90% means the compensation will be modest, but the legal findings themselves are significant.
Similar cases
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Yard controller with 30 years' service unfairly dismissed after radio failure caused collision
A yard controller with 30 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a 16-second delay in stopping a train due to a radio failure. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate and the procedure fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Unfair dismissal win but zero compensation: procedural flaws didn't save manager
An operations manager with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into financial irregularities, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway.