Voluntary redundancy after restructure: dismissal fair despite earlier grievances
An accessible transport officer who applied for voluntary redundancy after a restructure has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and the process fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #restructure
- #voluntary-redundancy
- #inbox-duties
- #constructive-dismissal-allegation
- #union-involvement
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an accessible transport officer from 2 January 2014.
- The respondent restructured its CATS department, deleting the claimant's role.
- The claimant submitted an expression of interest in voluntary redundancy on 21 January 2022.
- The respondent accepted the expression of interest on 31 January 2022.
- The respondent issued a formal notice of redundancy on 14 February 2022, terminating employment on 12 April 2022.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and was fair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as an accessible transport officer.
-
Temporary inbox duty assigned
The claimant was temporarily given daily management of the department inbox.
-
Permanent inbox duty assigned
The claimant was told the inbox duty would be permanent; she objected.
-
Meeting about workload
The claimant met management to discuss workload and wellbeing; she felt intimidated.
-
Restructure consultation began
The respondent started consulting on a restructure that would affect the claimant's department.
-
Restructure presentation
A presentation was given about the proposed new structure.
-
Meeting about conduct
The claimant was told she was 'loud, aggressive and rude'; she alleged racial harassment.
-
Inbox duty reduced
The respondent agreed the claimant would do inbox duties two days a week only.
-
Expression of interest in voluntary redundancy
The claimant submitted an expression of interest for voluntary redundancy.
-
Voluntary redundancy accepted
The respondent accepted the claimant's request for voluntary redundancy.
-
Formal notice of redundancy
The respondent issued a formal notice of redundancy, terminating employment on 12 April 2022.
-
Email requesting earlier last day
The claimant asked for her last working day to be 22 March 2022; this was not agreed.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed at all, and if so, whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (redundancy) and whether the employer acted reasonably in treating that as sufficient to dismiss.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The claimant applied for voluntary redundancy and it was accepted; she was not forced to resign.
- The restructure was genuine and her role was deleted; the redundancy process was fair.
- The earlier grievances about workload and conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract that would justify constructive dismissal.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Voluntary redundancy applications can be treated as a resignation, making it difficult to later claim constructive dismissal.
- Employers can restructure roles and delete posts if there is a genuine business need, even if the employee has ongoing grievances.
- To succeed in a constructive dismissal claim, you must show a fundamental breach of contract by the employer that caused you to resign.
When voluntary redundancy is not a dismissal
This case shows the importance of understanding how voluntary redundancy applications are treated in law. The claimant, an accessible transport officer with eight years' service, applied for voluntary redundancy after her department was restructured and her role deleted. The tribunal found that she was not dismissed by the employer — she chose to leave.
The restructure and grievances
The claimant had raised several complaints about her workload and treatment, including being assigned inbox duties and being told she was 'loud, aggressive and rude'. She alleged these amounted to constructive dismissal. However, the tribunal noted that the restructure was genuine and the redundancy process was properly followed. Her application for voluntary redundancy was accepted, and she was given notice.
What the employer did right
The London Borough of Camden consulted with staff, considered alternatives, and followed its redundancy policy. The claimant's expression of interest in voluntary redundancy was voluntary — she was not pressured into it. The tribunal found no evidence that the restructure was a sham or that the employer was trying to force her out.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who apply for voluntary redundancy should be aware that this can be seen as a resignation, not a dismissal. To succeed in an unfair dismissal claim, you must show you were dismissed by the employer. If you choose to leave, even in a redundancy situation, you may lose the right to claim unfair dismissal unless you can show you were forced out by a fundamental breach of contract.
Similar cases
Voluntary redundancy request accepted: tribunal finds no dismissal
A casting associate who asked for voluntary redundancy to care for his father lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal held the employment ended by mutual agreement, not dismissal.
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.
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.
Long-serving clerk made redundant after restructure: dismissal upheld
A charity's decision to delete a clerk and receiver role and replace it with a general manager post was fair, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay.