Claimant v Newby and Scalby Town Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the redundancy was a sham. The real reason for dismissal was the unresolved personality conflict and grievance between the claimant and the Clerk, Ms Marley. There was no genuine cessation or diminution of work; the decision to stop hub community events was taken after the redundancy decision. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair, with inadequate consultation and no consideration of alternatives.
Facts
The claimant worked as Community Support Co-Ordinator for the respondent town council from March 2021 to March 2024. After raising a grievance against the Clerk, Ms Marley, alleging bullying and harassment (which was substantiated by an independent investigation), the disciplinary process against Ms Marley was abruptly halted. The claimant was subsequently made redundant, purportedly due to loss of grant funding. The tribunal found the respondent had been seeking advice on dismissing the claimant before the grant issue arose, and the decision to stop community events at the hub occurred after the redundancy decision was made.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The redundancy was a sham; the real reason for dismissal was the unresolved conflict between the claimant and Ms Marley. There was no genuine cessation or diminution of work. The consultation process was wholly inadequate with no consideration of alternatives to compulsory redundancy. The claimant was awarded 12 months' compensatory loss (£20,910.66) plus a 25% ACAS uplift (£5,227.67) for the respondent's very poor compliance with the ACAS Code.
Practical note
Employers cannot use redundancy as a pretext to remove an employee following an unresolved grievance; a genuine redundancy situation must be proven with evidence of work cessation or diminution occurring before the dismissal decision.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 58.5 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
Respondent's compliance with ACAS Code was very poor. The claimant's grievance was not appropriately handled and was effectively terminated without explanation. The dismissal process was a sham with inadequate consultation and no consideration of alternatives. The offer of a grievance appeal was only made after termination and not in good faith. Maximum 25% uplift awarded totalling £5,227.67.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1804069/2024
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Community Support Co-Ordinator
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor