Sham redundancy after return from stress-related sick leave
A paralegal with nine years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer used a sham redundancy to get rid of her after she raised a grievance about bullying. The tribunal found the redundancy was not genuine.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #sham-redundancy
- #work-related-stress
- #grievance-not-investigated
- #shifting-reasons
- #failure-to-consult
- #bullying-by-manager
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Qualified Paralegal from 2007 until dismissal on 30 March 2016.
- The claimant went on sick leave due to work-related stress in October 2015 after a difficult relationship with her line manager Mr Fulford.
- On 11 February 2016, the day the claimant announced her return to work, she was placed on garden leave and told she was at risk of redundancy.
- The respondent gave multiple shifting reasons for the redundancy, including downturn in oil and gas, reduction in property work, need for a qualified solicitor, and outsourcing.
- The tribunal found no contemporaneous documentary evidence supporting a genuine redundancy situation.
- The respondent advertised a new role after the claimant's dismissal with duties almost identical to the claimant's role.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant began working for the respondent as a Legal Executive, later becoming a Qualified Paralegal.
-
Mr Fulford promoted to Head of Legal
Mr Fulford became Head of Legal, and the claimant began reporting to him.
-
Claimant signed off sick with work-related stress
The claimant was signed off work due to work-related stress and submitted a grievance against Mr Fulford.
-
Claimant announced return to work
The claimant emailed Mr Browning confirming she was fit to return to work on 15 February.
-
Claimant placed on garden leave and at risk of redundancy
On the same day, the respondent sent a letter placing the claimant on garden leave and informing her her role was at risk of redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
Mr Newman held a consultation meeting with the claimant, citing reduction in property work and her resignation as Director of Gardline Brazil.
-
Second consultation meeting
Mr Newman held a further meeting; the claimant reiterated her belief the redundancy was a sham.
-
Final consultation meeting
The claimant's redundancy was confirmed; Mr Newman stated the grievance had been heard and alternative employment explored.
-
Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy
Mr Newman wrote to the claimant confirming her dismissal by reason of redundancy.
-
Grievance not upheld
Mr Browning wrote to the claimant stating her grievance against Mr Fulford was not upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was for a genuine redundancy or whether it was a sham to get rid of her due to a difficult working relationship with her line manager.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The redundancy was not genuine; the real reason was the claimant's difficult relationship with her line manager, Mr Fulford. The employer gave shifting reasons for the redundancy and failed to provide contemporaneous documentary evidence. After dismissal, a new role was advertised with almost identical duties. Compensation was not determined at this stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must have genuine documentary evidence to support a redundancy situation; shifting reasons after dismissal can indicate a sham.
- If a redundancy is announced on the same day an employee returns from stress-related sick leave, tribunals will scrutinise the timing closely.
- A grievance about bullying should be properly investigated before any dismissal process; failing to do so can undermine the fairness of a redundancy.
- Advertising a role with similar duties after a redundancy dismissal can be strong evidence that the redundancy was not genuine.
When a 'redundancy' masks a different motive
This case highlights how a redundancy process can be used as a pretext to dismiss an employee who has raised concerns about bullying. The claimant, a qualified paralegal with nine years' service, went on sick leave with work-related stress after a difficult relationship with her new line manager. On the very day she announced she was fit to return, she was placed on garden leave and told her role was at risk of redundancy.
The tribunal noted that the employer gave multiple shifting reasons for the redundancy — a downturn in oil and gas, a reduction in property work, the need for a qualified solicitor, and outsourcing. But there was no contemporaneous documentary evidence to support any of these claims. Crucially, after the claimant was dismissed, the employer advertised a new role with almost identical duties.
What the employer could have done differently
If there had been a genuine redundancy situation, the employer should have consulted properly, considered a fair selection pool, and explored alternatives. But the timing and lack of evidence pointed to a sham. The tribunal found that the real reason was the claimant's difficult relationship with her line manager — a reason that had nothing to do with redundancy.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that a redundancy label does not automatically protect an employer from an unfair dismissal claim. Tribunals will look behind the stated reason and examine the evidence. For employers, it shows that failing to investigate a grievance, announcing a redundancy on the day an employee returns from stress-related sick leave, and giving shifting reasons can all point to an unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Dismissed while on sick leave: fixed-term contract not renewed without consultation
A mental health practitioner with 15 years' experience was unfairly dismissed when her fixed-term contract was not renewed while she was on long-term sick leave. The tribunal awarded £33,443.28.
TUPE transfer failure: employees awarded £25,000 after being left behind
Two employees were unfairly dismissed and awarded £25,000 in damages after their employer failed to transfer them under TUPE regulations. The tribunal also made a protective award of 90 days' pay for failure to consult.
University academic unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation over retained post
A University of Leicester academic was unfairly dismissed when the university failed to properly consult on redundancy selection after changing its proposal to retain a permanent post. The tribunal awarded £72,487.50 in compensation.
Redundancy without consultation: protective award of 90 days' pay
A former employee won a protective award of 90 days' pay after his employer made him redundant without any consultation. The company was in administration and did not attend the hearing.