Is redundancy unfair if a teacher has no real opportunity to challenge their selection?

In Mr C Thompson v (1) Powys County Council (2) The Governing Body of Brynllywarch School, the tribunal examined whether the school had fairly selected a teacher and given him the opportunity to challenge his selection before making him redundant.

Facts

Mr Thompson worked as a teacher at a school for pupils aged 7 to 19 with complex emotional, social, behavioural, and additional learning needs. Following feedback that pupils wanted the option to study more practical subjects so they could work towards accredited qualifications, the school proposed reducing the number of general teaching roles from ten to eight and replacing them with two new vocational roles. 

The school informed the recognised trade union about the proposed redundancies and shared its business case and Management of Change and Redundancy Policy ('the policy'). It held an informal staff meeting and confirmed in writing that redundancies were being considered. Mr Thompson attended a formal group consultation meeting and was told that he could request an individual consultation meeting although he chose not to do so. 

The school scored those at risk of redundancy and Mr Thompson received the lowest score. Under the policy, he could make representations and ask the school to reconsider his selection. He could also request a breakdown of the scores and an explanation of how they were reached. Mr Thompson therefore asked for a copy of his skills matrix, the anonymous scores of others in the redundancy pool, details of why he received the lowest score, and a copy of the selection criteria used. However, the school only provided a list of each candidate's score, his own scores, and the skills audit form he had completed. 

Mr Thompson expressed an interest in an outdoor education teacher role, and the school invited him to interview. He asked the school to extend the deadline for making representations so he could both prepare for the interview and respond properly about his redundancy selection. The school refused to extend the deadline, although it did offer to postpone the interview. As he felt that he did not have enough information to make meaningful representations, Mr Thompson did not submit any and instead focused on the interview. However, he was unsuccessful and the school appointed another candidate, who was a friend of the deputy head teacher. When he later asked for feedback from the interview, the school said it had concerns about his skill set from a health and safety perspective and his leadership skills.  

The school gave Mr Thompson notice that his employment was being terminated by reason of redundancy. The school did approach Mr Thompson to discuss other roles but he did respond to these as he had already accepted another job elsewhere. 

Mr Thompson brought a claim for unfair dismissal. He said the school did not follow a reasonable process and it was not objective nor transparent. He argued that it failed to explain how the scoring matrix worked and he could not therefore make any meaningful representations. 

Employment tribunal 

The tribunal accepted that there was a genuine reduction in work. The school no longer needed ten general teaching posts and instead required only eight, alongside the two new specialist roles which required different skills. There was therefore a reduced need for academic teaching. 

However, the tribunal found that the school failed to give Mr Thompson enough information about how his scores were decided. As a result, he had no real opportunity to challenge his selection for redundancy. While he knew his own score and the anonymised scores of others, he could not assess whether his scores could realistically have been changed to avoid dismissal. 

The tribunal said this lack of information also prevented it from properly assessing whether the scoring process was fair. It could not be satisfied that the scores were based on careful and objective assessment rather than personal judgement. In particular, it was unclear what evidence was relied on, how Mr Thompson's scores were decided, whether they were based on documents or impressions, and whether the scorers knew the individuals they were assessing. 

Although the tribunal accepted that the school took reasonable steps to look for suitable alternative work and gave Mr Thompson the opportunity to apply for vacant roles, it concluded that the flaws in the selection process meant that his dismissal was unfair. 

The tribunal also found that Mr Thompson's unsuccessful application for the outdoor education role was because the school had genuine and understandable concerns about his suitability, not because the school just wanted to hire the deputy head teacher's friend. 

Key lessons for schools and colleges

Redundancy can be a potentially fair reason for dismissal. Under section 139 (1) (b) (i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a redundancy arises where an employer needs fewer employees to carry out work of a particular kind or expects that need to reduce.  

However, meeting the legal definition of redundancy is not enough. You must also act reasonably. In Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd, the EAT said that a reasonable employer should use clear and objective selection criteria that is applied fairly, give as much warning as possible to employees, consult properly with them (and any recognised trade union), and consider whether suitable alternative work is available. 

Employees must understand the criteria they are being scored against and the evidence used to reach their scores, and they must have a real opportunity to challenge them. As this case shows, failing to do this can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. 

Since 6 April 2026, the maximum protective award for failing to collectively consult has doubled from 90 to 180 days' pay, and from 1 January 2026, employees with six months' service will be able to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. You therefore need to ensure not only that a redundancy situation exists, but that you follow a fair and reasonable process throughout. You can keep up to date with these changes and find out how you can prepare here. 

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.