Redundancy dismissal timed just before 55th birthday: unfair dismissal over pension loss
An Arrears and Investigations Manager with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Slough Borough Council failed to consult properly and timed her redundancy 17 days before her 55th birthday, costing her pension access. Tribunal awarded £60,625.84.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #age-discrimination
- #failure-to-consult
- #failure-to-appeal
- #pension-loss
- #local-government
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Arrears and Investigations Manager from 5 June 2002 to 5 May 2021.
- The respondent undertook a restructure and the claimant's role was deleted; she was at risk of redundancy from November 2020.
- The respondent failed to hold a formal one-to-one consultation meeting with the claimant as required by its own procedure.
- The claimant was dismissed on 5 May 2021, 17 days before her 55th birthday, preventing her from accessing her pension without actuarial reduction.
- The respondent did not properly consider the claimant's appeal or grievance.
- The claimant was offered a role after dismissal but declined due to loss of trust.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Slough Borough Council.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant informed her role was to be deleted and she was at risk of redundancy; consultation period set from 4 November to 21 December 2020.
-
Meeting with line manager
Claimant had a virtual meeting with Mr West; she raised interest in early retirement and pension, but no formal consultation occurred.
-
Claimant's email
Claimant emailed stating she did not oppose deletion of her post, wished to retire at 55, and requested service end after 30 May 2021 for pension access.
-
Discussion about Development Manager role
Mr West mentioned a possible Development Manager role but never provided further information despite reminders.
-
Notice meeting
Claimant attended formal notice meeting; informed her employment would end on 5 May 2021, 17 days before her 55th birthday.
-
Request to extend notice
Claimant requested notice extended to 8 June 2021 to access pension; refused on 23 February.
-
Appeal submitted
Claimant appealed dismissal, asking for notice extension; appeal was not heard by a panel as per procedure.
-
Redeployment register
Respondent asked claimant if she wished to be placed on redeployment register; she completed a skills match form.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted grievance about lack of consultation, pension issue, and appeal failure; respondent did not consider it.
-
Dismissal date
Claimant's employment ended; she interviewed for Business Services Lead role on this day.
-
Job offer after dismissal
Claimant was offered the Business Services Lead role but declined due to loss of faith in the respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed due to the respondent's failure to follow proper redundancy procedures, and whether the claimant was discriminated against because of her age in the timing of her dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed but rejected her age discrimination claims.
Key reasons:
- The council failed to hold a formal one-to-one consultation meeting with the claimant, despite its own procedure requiring it.
- The appeal was not heard by a panel of three as per procedure, and the grievance was not considered.
- The timing of dismissal (17 days before her 55th birthday) prevented her from accessing her pension without actuarial reduction, but this was not found to be age discrimination.
Compensation:
- Total: £60,625.84
- Compensatory award: £60,625.84 (including pension loss)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow their own redundancy consultation procedures, including one-to-one meetings with at-risk employees.
- Failing to properly consider an employee's appeal or grievance can make a dismissal unfair.
- Timing a redundancy dismissal to avoid pension access can be challenged, but may not automatically amount to age discrimination.
- Long-serving employees (19 years) are entitled to a fair process, and procedural failures can lead to significant compensation.
- If you are at risk of redundancy, request a formal one-to-one meeting in writing and keep records of all communications.
A redundancy process that went wrong
This case shows how a failure to follow basic procedural steps can turn a genuine redundancy into an unfair dismissal. The claimant, an Arrears and Investigations Manager with 19 years' service, was told her role was at risk in November 2020. Despite the council's own procedure requiring individual consultation meetings, no formal one-to-one ever took place. A virtual meeting with her line manager in December was described as a 'chat' rather than a consultation, and the claimant's subsequent emails requesting an extension to her notice period to access her pension were ignored.
What the council could have done differently
The council had a clear policy: at-risk employees should have at least one individual consultation meeting, and appeals should be heard by a panel of three. Neither happened. The claimant was dismissed on 5 May 2021, just 17 days before her 55th birthday, meaning she could not access her pension without a significant reduction. When she appealed and raised a grievance, these were not properly considered. A simple step — holding the required meeting and properly considering her request to extend notice by a few weeks — could have avoided the claim entirely.
Why this matters
For employees facing redundancy, this case highlights the importance of employers sticking to their own procedures. Even where a redundancy is genuine, a flawed process can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal and substantial compensation. The £60,625.84 award reflects the pension loss the claimant suffered. While the age discrimination claim failed (the tribunal found no evidence the timing was deliberately age-motivated), the procedural failings were enough to succeed on unfair dismissal. For anyone in a similar position, keeping a clear record of requests for consultation and appeals is vital.
Similar cases
University academic unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation over retained post
A University of Leicester academic was unfairly dismissed when the university failed to properly consult on redundancy selection after changing its proposal to retain a permanent post. The tribunal awarded £72,487.50 in compensation.
Redundancy without consultation: protective award of 90 days' pay
A former employee won a protective award of 90 days' pay after his employer made him redundant without any consultation. The company was in administration and did not attend the hearing.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.