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.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as SENCO from May 2018 until her dismissal on 31 August 2021.
- The school faced financial difficulties with projected budget deficits and falling roll numbers.
- A restructure proposal was approved on 28 January 2021, reducing SEND provision and removing the claimant's post.
- The claimant applied for voluntary redundancy on 16 March 2021, which was approved, and received an enhanced payment.
- A geography teacher resigned two days after the claimant's dismissal, but the school did not offer the role to the claimant.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and the process was fair overall.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Mrs Spoor began working at the school, later focusing on SEN provision from July 2012.
-
Claimant appointed SENCO
She was formally offered the role of SENCO at UPS3 and TLR1a, teaching 0.9 FTE with four hours of geography per week.
-
New head teacher appointed
Mia Lowney took up post as head teacher in January 2021.
-
Restructure proposal approved
The governing body approved a restructure proposal to address financial difficulties, including reducing SEND provision and removing the claimant's post.
-
Consultation document issued
The proposal was emailed to all staff and union representatives, with a consultation period until 5 March 2021.
-
Governors considered consultation responses
Comments from unions were considered, and a detailed response was provided; changes were made but not affecting SEND.
-
Claimant applied for voluntary redundancy
Mrs Spoor applied for voluntary redundancy after receiving an estimate of her payment.
-
Voluntary redundancy approved
The claimant's application for voluntary redundancy was approved.
-
Claimant's employment formally ended
Her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy, effective 31 August 2021.
-
Geography teacher resigned
A geography teacher resigned, and the school advertised for a replacement; the claimant was not informed of this role.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and whether the process was fair, given the school's financial difficulties and the claimant's voluntary redundancy application.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the school had a genuine redundancy situation due to projected budget deficits and falling roll numbers. The restructure proposal was approved after consultation, and the claimant's post was removed. The claimant applied for and received voluntary redundancy with an enhanced payment. The tribunal concluded the process was fair overall, and the dismissal was by reason of redundancy.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Voluntary redundancy applications can be a strong indicator that the employee accepts the redundancy situation, making a later unfair dismissal claim harder to win.
- Schools facing financial difficulties should document the business case for restructures and consult properly with staff and unions to demonstrate a fair process.
- If a suitable alternative vacancy arises after a redundancy dismissal, the employer should consider offering it, but failure to do so may not automatically make the dismissal unfair if the role is not comparable.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible, but having legal representation can help navigate complex procedural and evidential issues.
A restructure driven by financial necessity
This case shows how a school's genuine financial difficulties can justify a redundancy dismissal, even when the employee has long service and a specialist role. The SENCO had worked at the school for over 21 years, but the school faced a projected budget deficit of over £100,000, worsening to nearly £700,000 within two years. The new head teacher proposed a restructure to reduce SEND provision, which was approved by the governing body after consultation with staff and unions. The claimant's post was removed as part of that restructure.
The voluntary redundancy application
Crucially, the claimant herself applied for voluntary redundancy after receiving an estimate of her enhanced payment. Her application was approved, and she received the payment. The tribunal noted that this was a significant factor: by applying for voluntary redundancy, the claimant accepted that her role was redundant. She later argued that the school should have offered her a geography teaching post that became vacant two days after her dismissal, but the tribunal found that role was not suitable alternative employment as it was a different position and the school had already advertised it.
What the school did right
The school followed a structured consultation process, issuing a consultation document, considering union responses, and making some changes (though not affecting SEND). The tribunal found the process was fair overall. The key lesson for employers is that a clear business case, proper consultation, and a transparent selection process can withstand scrutiny, especially when the employee has voluntarily agreed to redundancy.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and that the school acted reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason. The claimant's argument that the school should have redeployed her into the geography role was rejected because the role was not comparable and the school had already filled it. This case reinforces that voluntary redundancy can be a double-edged sword: it may provide a financial cushion, but it also weakens any later claim that the redundancy was unfair.
Similar cases
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.
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 after employee refused selection interviews
A Client Account Manager with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after refusing to attend selection interviews and declining an alternative role. The tribunal upheld the dismissal by a majority, finding the redundancy genuine and the process reasonable.
CCTV operatives made redundant: fair dismissal after consultation and alternative roles offered
Three long-serving CCTV operatives who refused to apply for ringfenced Community Guardian roles were fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal upheld the employer's consultation process and offer of alternative employment.