Teaching assistant made redundant after Ofsted safeguarding concerns: dismissal fair
A teaching assistant and deputy safeguarding lead who was made redundant after an Ofsted inspection found weaknesses in safeguarding arrangements has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and the process fair.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-victimisation
- #redundancy
- #safeguarding-role
- #honorarium
- #protected-act
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Teaching Assistant and Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead from March 2017.
- An Ofsted inspection in May 2019 found safeguarding weaknesses, leading to restructuring.
- The claimant's DSL role was withdrawn in August 2019 after she rejected a full-time offer.
- The claimant raised a grievance in October 2019, but did not mention race; her appeal in January 2020 did.
- The claimant was made redundant in March 2020 due to diminished need for a DDSL role.
- The tribunal found the redundancy genuine and dismissal fair, and rejected victimisation and breach of contract claims.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a full-time Teaching Assistant.
-
Role changed to TA and DDSL
Claimant's role changed to a dual role of Teaching Assistant and Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead.
-
Acted up as DSL
Claimant acted up as Designated Safeguarding Lead to cover sickness absence, receiving an honorarium.
-
Permanent DSL role offered
Claimant was offered the DSL role on a permanent 3-day basis, with no further pay rise.
-
Ofsted inspection
Ofsted carried out an unannounced inspection, finding weaknesses in safeguarding arrangements.
-
Full-time DSL offer
Respondent offered claimant a full-time DSL role at £33,000 p.a., which she did not accept.
-
Offer withdrawn
Respondent withdrew the full-time DSL offer due to claimant's rejection and need for immediate SLT member.
-
Reverted to previous role
Claimant reverted to TA and DDSL role with no reduction in pay.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a formal grievance with 7 heads of complaint, including discrimination but not specifically race.
-
Grievance appeal
Claimant appealed grievance outcome, specifically referencing race discrimination.
-
Redundancy consultation started
Claimant invited to meeting where role was at risk of redundancy; offered extension of TA role which she rejected.
-
Redundancy confirmed
Claimant was made redundant by letter.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, subjected to race victimisation, or suffered a breach of contract regarding honorarium payments.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the redundancy was genuine and the process fair. The claimant's race victimisation claim failed because the protected act (raising race discrimination) occurred after the decision to withdraw the DSL offer. The breach of contract claim regarding honorarium payments failed because the claimant knew the payments had been replaced by a pay rise.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are offered a new role after a restructuring, consider the terms carefully before rejecting, as the offer may not be repeated.
- To bring a victimisation claim, you must show that the alleged detriment was caused by a protected act that occurred before the detriment.
- Honorarium payments are not guaranteed and can be replaced by a pay rise if agreed with the employer.
- A genuine redundancy situation can justify dismissal even if the employee feels the role could have been retained.
- Raising a grievance that does not mention race may not later support a race victimisation claim if the employer's actions predate the race complaint.
A restructuring triggered by Ofsted
When Ofsted found safeguarding weaknesses at an independent school for girls with special needs, the school had to act fast. The teaching assistant and deputy designated safeguarding lead (DDSL) had been acting as the designated safeguarding lead (DSL), but Ofsted criticised the DSL role for lacking seniority. The school offered her a full-time DSL role with a salary increase and a place on the senior leadership team. She rejected it, citing unresolved issues. The school then withdrew the offer and appointed a consultant headteacher to restructure.
The redundancy decision
The claimant reverted to her previous role as TA and DDSL, but the restructuring meant the DDSL role was no longer needed. She was consulted about redundancy and offered an extension of her TA role, which she rejected. She was then made redundant. The tribunal found that the redundancy was genuine – the school needed a full-time DSL who was a member of the senior leadership team, and the claimant had turned down that role. The dismissal was fair because the school acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Why the victimisation claim failed
The claimant argued that the withdrawal of the DSL offer and her redundancy were acts of victimisation because she had raised a grievance about race discrimination. However, the tribunal noted that her initial grievance in October 2019 did not mention race. She only raised race discrimination in her appeal in January 2020 – after the DSL offer had been withdrawn in August 2019. The tribunal found that the protected act (the race complaint) came too late to have caused the withdrawal. The redundancy was also unrelated to the race complaint.
The honorarium claim
The claimant also claimed she was owed honorarium payments for acting as DSL from June 2019 to March 2020. The tribunal found that the honorarium had been replaced by a pay rise in February 2018, which the claimant accepted at the time. She was not entitled to further payments.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that employers can restructure after regulatory criticism, and if an employee rejects a suitable alternative role, redundancy may follow. For employees, it highlights the importance of raising discrimination complaints promptly – before any detrimental decision is made. It also confirms that honorariums are not indefinite unless agreed otherwise.
Similar cases
Redundancy with no consultation: a small employer's costly mistake
A graphic designer was told her role was redundant in a five-minute meeting with no warning, no consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The tribunal awarded £14,200.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Site closure without process: redundancy dismissal ruled unfair
A former employee with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after his site closed and the employer failed to follow any redundancy process. The tribunal awarded over £44,000 in compensation.
Interim relief refused: redundancy decision made before protected disclosures
A senior contracts attorney lost her bid for interim relief after the tribunal found her redundancy was decided before she made protected disclosures about sanctions risks. The claim was dismissed.