Claimant v Atomics Educational Trust (formerly Tees Valley Collaborative Trust)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while a genuine redundancy existed and the refusal of the Deputy Head role was reasonable, the respondent breached its pay protection policy by failing to offer the alternative Student Liaison Lead role with pay protection. The respondent's failure to follow its own mandatory pay protection policy, which required individual consultation and consideration of affordability, fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The claimant would have accepted the alternative role if offered with pay protection for his existing salary. This breach meant the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to avoid or minimise redundancy by redeployment.
Facts
The claimant worked for 26 years as a Liaison Manager with SEND focus at a multi-academy trust. Following a 2024 restructure, he applied for a Deputy Head role but was rejected for lacking formal teaching qualifications. He was offered an alternative Student Liaison Lead role at two sites with £4,953 annual pay cut. He declined this role citing the pay cut, demotion, and multi-site working. He was dismissed for redundancy on 10 September 2024. The respondent failed to offer him pay protection despite having a policy requiring it.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. While the redundancy was genuine and rejecting the claimant for the Deputy Head role was reasonable due to lack of teaching qualifications, the respondent breached its mandatory pay protection policy by not offering the alternative role with salary protection. This failure meant the respondent did not take reasonable steps to avoid redundancy through redeployment, falling outside the range of reasonable responses. The claimant was awarded £30,723 covering one year's loss.
Practical note
Employers conducting redundancies must follow their own pay protection policies when offering alternative roles, particularly for long-serving employees facing significant pay cuts, or risk a finding of unfair dismissal for failure to take reasonable redeployment steps.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 40.4 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6018788/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Liaison Manager
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 26 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No