Case 1600898/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mrs S Wilcox (2) Miss E O’Monaigh v Powys County Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600898/2020
- Decision date
- 31 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mrs S Wilcox (2) Miss E O’Monaigh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard two claims of unfair dismissal brought by Mrs S Wilcox and Miss E O'Monaigh arising from the same redundancy exercise within Powys County Council's School Service. The Respondent accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal. The tribunal found that there was a genuine redundancy situation within the School Improvement Team, because the need for employees to carry out the particular kind of work done by the SEN Advisory Teachers had diminished as some work had been completed and the service was moving towards a more operational model.
The tribunal found that the redundancy process began with a March 2019 business case proposing that the SEN Advisory Team would be reduced from five officers to three, move into the ALN and Inclusion Team, and be retitled as Inclusion Officers. The Claimants were informed that they were at risk, consultation took place with them and with the trade unions, and the consultation period was extended. The tribunal noted the change in salary levels between the existing SEN Adviser roles, which were over £40,000 per annum, and the proposed Inclusion Officer roles, which were evaluated at £28,000 per annum, and recorded that the Claimants would have to apply for the new roles if they wished to be considered.
Although the tribunal had misgivings about aspects of the pool for selection, the consultation, and the delay in appeals, it concluded that the Respondent's approach remained within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal noted that no issue had been raised at the time about pooling the SEN Advisers with the ALN Managers, that suitable alternative employment was addressed by the Respondent, and that the appeals were delayed in part by the need to convene Council Member panels and then by the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the tribunal held that both dismissals were fair and dismissed the claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mrs S Wilcox's unfair dismissal claim arising from the redundancy exercise was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Miss E O'Monaigh's unfair dismissal claim arising from the same redundancy exercise was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.139(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Williams and others v Compair Maxam [1982] ICR 156
- Thomas and Betts Manufacturing Company v Harding [1980] IRLR 255
- Polkey principle
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.