Archives data inputter loses unfair dismissal claim after redundancy process
A part-time archives data inputter who was made redundant after refusing to engage with consultation has lost her claims for unfair dismissal, victimisation and age discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #victimisation
- #age-discrimination
- #sexual-harassment
- #archives-service
- #data-inputter
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an Archives Data Inputter from around 2006 until October 2019.
- Her role was funded from the Archive Service Development Budget and tied to the move of the archives service to Ely.
- The claimant had a difficult working relationship with colleague Richard Anderson but never raised a formal grievance.
- In March 2018, the claimant indicated she would raise a grievance if Mr Anderson became her line manager, but did not pursue it.
- The respondent conducted a formal consultation process for redundancy, which the claimant largely declined to engage with.
- The claimant's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy at the end of October 2019.
Timeline
-
Claimant recruited as Data Inputter
The claimant was recruited as a fixed-term part-time Archives Data Inputter (18.5 hours per week) to help prepare for the move of the archives service.
-
Contract made permanent
Around 2010, the claimant's fixed-term contract was rolled into a permanent contract until the move from Shire Hall to new premises.
-
Claimant emails about working relationship with Mr Anderson
The claimant emailed Mr Akeroyd stating her working relationship with Mr Anderson had entirely broken down, but gave no specific examples.
-
Claimant threatens grievance over Mr Anderson
When Mr Anderson was proposed as her line manager, the claimant threatened to raise a formal grievance. Mr Akeroyd agreed to line manage her instead.
-
Mr Akeroyd informs Mr Anderson of change
Mr Akeroyd emailed Mr Anderson stating he would line manage the claimant directly, without mentioning any grievance or protected act.
-
Redundancy considered
Mr Akeroyd emailed HR indicating the two data inputter roles would end in summer 2019 and it was becoming hard to supply work.
-
Consultation launch
The respondent launched a formal consultation on proposed changes, including removal of the two data inputter posts. The claimant declined to attend or participate by phone.
-
Notice of redundancy issued
Both data inputters were issued with formal notice of redundancy and given redeployment status.
-
Appeal meeting
Ms May met with the claimant to discuss her appeal concerns, including allegations of victimisation. The claimant confirmed she had not raised a formal grievance.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy at the end of October 2019.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether her dismissal amounted to victimisation, harassment related to sex, or direct age discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation because the data inputter roles were tied to a specific project that was ending. The consultation process was reasonable, even though the claimant largely declined to participate. The tribunal also rejected allegations that the claimant had been victimised for threatening a grievance, or that she was discriminated against because of her age or sex. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Refusing to engage with a redundancy consultation can weaken your case, even if you believe the process is unfair.
- Threatening a grievance without following it through is unlikely to count as a protected act for victimisation claims.
- Employers can fairly dismiss for redundancy when a specific project ends, provided they follow a genuine consultation process.
- Length of service and a difficult working relationship do not automatically make a redundancy dismissal unfair.
A redundancy that was hard to challenge
This case shows how difficult it can be to challenge a genuine redundancy dismissal, even when the employee has had long service and a difficult relationship with a colleague. The claimant had worked for Cambridgeshire County Council since 2006 as a part-time Archives Data Inputter, but her role was always tied to the planned move of the archives service to Ely. When the move was completed, the funding for her post dried up.
The tribunal accepted that the redundancy was genuine. The council had a clear budget line for the data inputter roles, and once the project ended, there was simply no work for the claimant to do. The consultation process was reasonable, even though the claimant declined to attend meetings or participate by phone. The tribunal noted that the council had offered alternative roles and redeployment support, but the claimant did not engage.
What the employer did right
Cambridgeshire County Council followed a structured process. It identified the redundancy situation early, launched a formal consultation, and gave the claimant every opportunity to discuss alternatives. When she refused to attend, the council still considered her written representations and offered an appeal meeting. The tribunal found this fell within the range of reasonable responses for a fair dismissal.
The claimant also argued that the redundancy was a sham, motivated by her difficult relationship with a colleague and her threat to raise a grievance. But the tribunal found no evidence that the redundancy decision was linked to any protected act. The threat of a grievance was never formalised, and the council had already been considering redundancy for the data inputter roles before any grievance was mentioned.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees facing redundancy, this case is a reminder that engaging with the process is crucial. Even if you believe the decision is unfair, refusing to participate can make it harder to argue that the employer acted unreasonably. For employers, it shows that a genuine redundancy situation, properly consulted on, can survive a challenge even when the employee has long service and a history of workplace friction.
Similar cases
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
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.
Claims dismissed after claimants fail to attend final hearing
Two former employees who brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and redundancy had their cases thrown out after failing to attend the final hearing or provide any evidence.
Dismissed by text message during lockdown: a TUPE redundancy that went wrong
A graphic designer with 15 years' service was dismissed by text message during the first lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected age discrimination claims.