Teaching assistant's redundancy dismissal upheld after voluntary acceptance
An employment tribunal has dismissed an unfair dismissal claim by a teaching assistant who accepted voluntary redundancy during a school restructure, finding the process was fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #teaching-assistant
- #curriculum-resource-support
- #nursery-level-3
- #interview-process
- #voluntary-redundancy
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a teaching assistant from 2 October 2013 to 31 August 2021.
- The school restructured support staff roles into a single 'Curriculum Resource Support' (CRS) category.
- The claimant withdrew from the CRS application process and accepted voluntary redundancy.
- The school mistakenly believed a Level 3 qualification was not required for the nursery role.
- The claimant did not apply for temporary SEND roles advertised in summer 2021.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a teaching assistant at Dalmain Primary School.
-
Nursery nurse retired
The nursery nurse retired, leaving a vacancy. Claimant expressed interest but later withdrew.
-
Consultation period began
School proposed restructure of support staff into CRS roles; consultation ran from 19 April to 10 May 2021.
-
Claimant applied for CRS role
Claimant put herself forward for one of the new CRS roles.
-
Claimant withdrew application
Claimant emailed to withdraw from the CRS process and accepted voluntary redundancy.
-
Scheduled interview date
Claimant was due to attend an interview for the CRS role but withdrew the day before.
-
Notice period began
Claimant was given notice from 14 July to 31 August 2021.
-
Temporary SEND roles advertised
School advertised temporary CRS SEND practitioner roles; claimant did not apply.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy.
-
Ofsted inspection
Inspection found school was operating out of ratio by not having a Level 3 in nursery.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the teaching assistant's dismissal for redundancy was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, given the school's restructure and the claimant's specific complaints about how the process was handled.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, ruling that the redundancy was genuine and the process was fair.
Key reasons:
- The claimant voluntarily withdrew from the application process for the new CRS roles and accepted voluntary redundancy.
- The school had a genuine business need to restructure support staff roles for flexibility and budget reasons.
- The claimant's specific complaints (nursery role not presented as Level 3, unclear duties, temporary SEND roles, interview process) did not render the dismissal unfair.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you accept voluntary redundancy and withdraw from a re-application process, you may find it difficult to later claim unfair dismissal.
- Employers can restructure roles for flexibility and efficiency, as long as the redundancy is genuine and the process is fair.
- Tribunals will focus on whether the employer acted reasonably in all circumstances, not on every minor procedural complaint.
- Voluntary redundancy does not automatically make a dismissal fair, but it is a strong factor if the employee freely chose it.
A restructure that led to a voluntary exit
This case shows how a school's decision to reorganise its support staff can lead to a redundancy situation, even when the affected employee disagrees with the underlying rationale. The teaching assistant, who had eight years' service, was unhappy that the school wanted to create a single 'Curriculum Resource Support' role that could be deployed flexibly across the school, rather than keeping dedicated roles for specific tasks like nursery support or one-to-one work.
What the school did right
The school followed a structured process: it proposed the restructure, consulted with staff and unions, and then invited affected employees to apply for the new roles. The claimant initially applied but withdrew the day before her interview, instead accepting voluntary redundancy. The tribunal noted that the school had a genuine business need for the changes, partly driven by budget pressures, and that the consultation was carried out properly.
Why the claim failed
The claimant argued that the school should have presented the nursery support role as a Level 3 position, that the CRS role duties were unclear, that temporary SEND roles should have been offered to her, and that the interview process was flawed. However, the tribunal found that none of these points made the dismissal unfair. Crucially, the claimant had chosen to withdraw from the process and take voluntary redundancy. Having done so, she could not later challenge the fairness of a dismissal she had effectively accepted.
What this means for similar cases
For employees facing redundancy, this case is a reminder that voluntarily stepping away from a re-application process can limit your ability to claim unfair dismissal later. For employers, it shows that a genuine restructure, properly consulted on and implemented, will usually be upheld by a tribunal — even if individual employees disagree with the changes.
Similar cases
Voluntary redundancy: stage crew member with dyslexia wins unfair dismissal claim
A long-serving stage crew member with dyslexia has won his unfair dismissal claim against Welsh National Opera after the tribunal found the employer failed to discuss reasonable adjustments during a redundancy process. All other claims, including age discrimination and protected disclosure complaints, were dismissed.
SENCO's voluntary redundancy claim fails: school's financial restructure upheld
A tribunal found that a school fairly dismissed its SENCO by reason of redundancy after a genuine restructure to address budget deficits, rejecting claims of unfair selection.
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.