Redundancy dismissal upheld for personal assistant at small care home
A personal assistant who argued her redundancy was a sham lost her unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found the role had genuinely diminished. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #diminishing-role
- #pandemic-related
- #small-employer
- #pool-of-one
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a personal assistant from 13 September 2016 until 11 March 2022.
- The respondent is a small care home with 14 residents and about 26 staff.
- The PA admin work diminished from 2020 onwards due to changes during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The claimant was warned of redundancy, consulted over two weeks, and offered alternative roles which she did not accept.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy and the procedure was fair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a personal assistant for Neptune House Limited.
-
Started kitchen assistance
Claimant began assisting her grandmother in the care home kitchen on Fridays.
-
Started carer role
Claimant also started working as a carer.
-
Pandemic impact
From the start of the pandemic, the claimant's admin hours reduced and caring duties increased.
-
Admin hours further reduced
From this date, carer hours exceeded PA admin hours, indicating diminished need for admin work.
-
Vaccine investigation meeting
Meeting regarding claimant's adverse reaction to first COVID vaccination and refusal of second dose.
-
Protected meeting invitation
Respondent invited claimant to a confidential protected meeting; claimant raised grievance alleging bullying.
-
Grievance meeting
Grievance meeting held; grievance was dismissed and claimant did not pursue appeal.
-
Redundancy warning
Respondent warned claimant that her PA role was at risk of redundancy and invited to consultation.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment terminated by reason of redundancy; she received statutory redundancy pay, notice pay, and holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, specifically whether the reason for dismissal was redundancy and whether the employer acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason to dismiss.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the dismissal was for a genuine redundancy and that the procedure was fair.
Key reasons:
- The PA admin work had diminished from 2020 onwards due to changes during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The respondent, a small care home, warned the claimant of redundancy, consulted over two weeks, and offered alternative roles which she did not accept.
- The tribunal accepted the pool of one (the claimant) was reasonable given the unique nature of her role.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Small employers may have more flexibility in redundancy procedures, but must still show genuine consultation and consideration of alternatives.
- A 'pool of one' can be reasonable if the role is unique and there is no interchangeability with other roles.
- Pandemic-related changes to business needs can be a genuine redundancy situation, even if the employee also performs other duties.
- Employees who are offered suitable alternative roles should consider them carefully, as refusal may weaken a subsequent unfair dismissal claim.
When a role fades away
This case shows how a genuine reduction in work, even in a small business, can justify a redundancy dismissal. The personal assistant had worked for Neptune House Limited for over six years, but from 2020 her admin duties steadily decreased as the care home adapted to the pandemic. By mid-2021, her carer hours exceeded her PA hours, and the employer concluded the admin role was no longer needed.
What the employer did right
The care home followed a structured process: it warned the claimant, held consultation meetings over two weeks, and offered alternative roles including a full-time carer position. The claimant did not accept any of the alternatives. The tribunal noted that as a small employer with 26 staff, the respondent's approach was proportionate and reasonable. It also accepted that a 'pool of one' was appropriate because the PA role was unique and not interchangeable with other jobs.
Why the claim failed
The claimant argued that the redundancy was a sham and that the real reason was her refusal to take a second COVID vaccine. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support this. The timeline showed the admin work had diminished well before the vaccine issue arose. The dismissal was therefore for a genuine redundancy, and the procedure was fair.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that redundancy can happen even when you have long service and have taken on other duties. For employers, it shows that a fair process—warning, consultation, and consideration of alternatives—can protect against unfair dismissal claims, especially for small businesses where formal procedures may be less elaborate.
Similar cases
Panel beater dismissed in redundancy: small employer's 'pool of one' upheld
A Watford tribunal has ruled that a panel beater with three years' service was fairly dismissed when his employer, a four-person car repair shop, made him redundant as the only employee at risk. The decision highlights how small employers can follow a lighter process.
Redundancy dismissal upheld: how a small employer handled pandemic restructuring fairly
A Watford tribunal found that Flitetec Ltd fairly dismissed a senior sales account manager for redundancy after losing 70% of its revenue during the pandemic. The claim was dismissed.
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.
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.