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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Law Enforcement Officer from 15 May 2017 to 15 May 2021.
- A restructuring exercise reduced the number of LEO posts from 33 to 26.
- The claimant applied for two new roles but scored below the appointability threshold of 30/60.
- The claimant's employment as an LEO was terminated by notice on 12 February 2021, and he accepted a temporary fixed-term role until 15 May 2021.
- The claimant presented his ET1 claim on 26 July 2021 after ACAS early conciliation from 27 May to 3 June 2021.
- The tribunal found the only protected act was a grievance on 18 June 2020 complaining of sex and race discrimination by colleagues.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Law Enforcement Officer for London Borough of Newham.
-
Alleged protected act
Claimant alleges he discussed discriminatory behaviour with manager Nigel Mould; tribunal found this did not occur.
-
Email complaint about Hillsden
Claimant emailed Mr Mould complaining about aggressive and bullying conduct by colleague Alan Hillsden.
-
Shift change
Claimant moved from night shift to day shift by Mr Mould.
-
Notified of disciplinary investigation
Claimant informed he was under investigation for alleged gross misconduct.
-
Investigation concluded
Claimant told no further disciplinary action would be taken; mediation recommended.
-
Formal grievance (protected act)
Claimant raised a grievance to Jamie Blake complaining of sex and race discrimination by Hillsden and associates.
-
Restructure consultation begins
Staff meeting held to announce restructuring; claimant attended via Zoom.
-
First interview for new role
Claimant interviewed for Community Safety Enforcement Officer; scored 25.5/60.
-
Redundancy notice
Claimant given notice of termination due to redundancy, effective 12 February 2021.
-
Started temporary role
Claimant began a three-month fixed-term contract as an Outreach Worker.
-
Employment ended
Temporary contract ended; claimant's employment with the respondent ceased.
-
ET1 claim presented
Claimant filed his employment tribunal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether he was subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation on grounds of race and age.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the redundancy was genuine and the selection process was fair. The claimant's discrimination and harassment claims were largely out of time or not well-founded. The victimisation claim failed because the alleged detrimental acts either predated the protected act or were not causally linked to it. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Time limits for discrimination claims are strict – you generally have three months from the act complained of, and the tribunal has limited discretion to extend time.
- A protected act (like a grievance) must occur before any alleged victimisation – acts before the protected act cannot form the basis of a victimisation claim.
- In a genuine redundancy situation, a fair selection process and consultation can defeat an unfair dismissal claim even if the employee disagrees with the scoring.
- If you are representing yourself, prepare cross-examination questions in advance – not doing so can put you at a significant disadvantage.
- Keep records of all communications and decisions related to your employment, as they may be crucial to proving your case.
A redundancy decision under scrutiny
This case shows how a properly conducted redundancy process can withstand challenge, even when the employee believes they were treated unfairly. The law enforcement officer, who had four years' service, was selected for redundancy after a restructuring reduced the number of roles from 33 to 26. He applied for two new positions but scored below the appointability threshold of 30 out of 60. The tribunal found the scoring was objective and the consultation process was adequate, so the dismissal was fair.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant alleged race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation spanning several years. However, many of his complaints were lodged after the three-month time limit. The tribunal declined to extend time, noting that the claimant had not provided a good reason for the delay. The only protected act identified was a grievance in June 2020, but most of the alleged victimisation occurred before that date. The tribunal found no evidence that the redundancy decision was linked to the protected act.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals will examine the facts closely. For employees, it highlights the importance of bringing claims promptly and ensuring that any alleged victimisation occurs after the protected act. For employers, it shows that a clear, documented redundancy process with objective criteria can provide a strong defence. The claimant represented himself, which may have made it harder to present his case effectively – professional legal advice can be crucial in complex discrimination claims.
Similar cases
Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
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.
Line Driver's discrimination claims dismissed as out of time after redundancy
An employment tribunal dismissed all discrimination claims brought by a part-time Line Driver with 4 years' service against Manheim Limited, finding they were brought too late and lacked merit. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn.
Late claim form costs employee unfair dismissal case despite discrimination claims proceeding
A senior customer service adviser with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being presented 4.5 months late, but his discrimination claims will proceed to a full hearing.