Redundancy during maternity leave: unfair dismissal but no compensation
An English & Maths Community Coordinator with 9 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Birmingham Metropolitan College during maternity leave, but the tribunal awarded no compensation due to a 100% Polkey reduction.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an English & Maths Community Coordinator from 24 May 2012 until 25 May 2021.
- She commenced maternity leave on 21 March 2020, which coincided with the first COVID-19 lockdown.
- In January 2021, due to a third national lockdown, the claimant's role was identified as redundant.
- The respondent conducted a perfunctory consultation process, placing the claimant in a pool of one.
- The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 25 May 2021.
- The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to inadequate consultation but awarded no compensation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began continuous employment with Birmingham Metropolitan College.
-
Pregnancy notified
Claimant notified respondent of her pregnancy around the beginning of January 2020.
-
Maternity leave started
Claimant commenced maternity leave, coinciding with the first national COVID-19 lockdown.
-
Team restructure
Claimant's team moved from Foundation Learning to Commercial Services Directorate.
-
Proposed restructure
A proposal to remove the claimant's role was made but not approved.
-
Awareness of redundancy risk
Claimant became aware that her role might be at risk of redundancy upon return from maternity leave.
-
Formal redundancy notification
Claimant received a letter formally informing her that her position was at risk of redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
First of three consultation meetings held; claimant told she would be dismissed at the third meeting.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant was advised she had been selected for redundancy and would be dismissed with three months' notice.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, and whether she suffered discrimination or detriment due to pregnancy or maternity leave.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy due to inadequate consultation. However, it applied a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning she would have been dismissed even with a fair process, so no compensation was awarded.
- Unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
- Discrimination and detriment claims dismissed.
- No compensation awarded (100% Polkey reduction).
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service does not guarantee a fair redundancy process; employers must still conduct meaningful consultation.
- A 'pool of one' can be legitimate if the role is genuinely unique, but the consultation must still be thorough.
- Tribunals may apply a Polkey reduction if they believe dismissal was inevitable even with a fair process, potentially reducing compensation to zero.
- Employees on maternity leave are protected from discrimination, but a redundancy process focused on genuine business needs may still be fair.
- Keep detailed records of all communications during redundancy consultation, as they can be crucial evidence.
A redundancy process that fell short
This case highlights how a redundancy process that is procedurally flawed can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal, yet still result in no compensation if the outcome was inevitable. The claimant, an English & Maths Community Coordinator with nine years' service, was made redundant while on maternity leave during the COVID-19 pandemic. Birmingham Metropolitan College identified her role as redundant due to a restructure and placed her in a pool of one. The consultation process was described by the tribunal as perfunctory, with the claimant being told at the first meeting that she would be dismissed at the third. This lack of genuine consultation rendered the dismissal unfair.
Why no compensation was awarded
Despite the unfairness, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction. This means that even if a fair consultation had taken place, the claimant would still have been dismissed. The college's financial pressures and the genuine redundancy of her role meant that no alternative employment was available. As a result, the claimant succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim but received no compensation. The tribunal also dismissed her claims of pregnancy/maternity discrimination and detriment, finding that the redundancy was not motivated by her maternity leave.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that a successful unfair dismissal claim does not always lead to a payout. If the employer can show that a fair process would have led to the same outcome, compensation can be reduced or eliminated. For employers, it underscores the importance of conducting a genuine consultation, even when the outcome seems inevitable. A perfunctory process can still result in a finding of unfair dismissal, with associated costs and reputational damage, even if no compensation is awarded.
Similar cases
Tandoor chef dismissed without consultation during lockdown: unfair but no compensation
A tandoor chef with five years' service was made redundant without any consultation after his restaurant closed for lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but awarded only £1,304 because he would have been dismissed anyway.
Finance Manager loses redundancy and discrimination claims after returning from maternity leave
An Employment Tribunal has dismissed all claims of maternity discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal brought by a Finance Manager who was made redundant shortly after returning from maternity leave.
Redundancy dismissal for research nurse: pool of one and Polkey reduction
A respiratory research nurse was unfairly dismissed when her fixed-term contract was not renewed due to financial deficits. The tribunal awarded £11,754 after finding a 50% chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Redundancy after maternity leave: dismissal fair despite COVID-19 changes
A health and beauty manager who was made redundant after returning from maternity leave has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and the process fair.